A Letter From The Teacher, #19: Wherefore SAT?

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Bob, My Most Steamed Colleague
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Wherefore SAT?

Dear Bob:

Well, the moment we knew was coming has arrived: The SAT scores are down this year, but the ACT scores are up. To sum it up, minorities and the poor tend to do worse than white bread kids and the wealthy. Oh yes, and Asian kids are doing well and getting better. Who'da thunk it? Here's a link to an Inside Higher Education article, which has charts, so it must be good and authoritative! And here's a link to that interesting Charles Murray article you were looking for last week

Just like the eternally "unexpected" consequences and failures of socialistic government, the elite can't imagine why SAT scores have fallen. Simultaneously, some misguided conservatives see these temporary statistics (all statistics are temporary, aren't they?) as incontrovertible proof of the abject failure of the public schools, but then again, they see the incontrovertible failure of the public schools in sunshine, rain, Al Gore and Obama speeches. By the way, the IHE article actually notes that the best research shows high school GPA is the best indicator of first year success in college. Give that man a Louis Renault Award! I'm shocked, shocked!

Let me step off the rhetorical path for a moment to lambast those that have taken to calling our schools "government schools," as though it is the most objectionable of obscenities, demonstrating the kind of disgust when mouthing it generally reserved for Obama speeches. They're our schools; it's our government. If they're not responsive or failing we're to blame for our neglect and indifference. Runaway bureaucracy with delusions of grandeur and adequacy should be relentlessly –within the boundaries of the law—reminded of our displeasure with its utopian, socialistic ideas. Thus endeth the lesson for today. The choir shall now assemble for the mandatory preaching session.

Anyway, there are several obvious reasons for the SAT stats, I mean apart from the fact that a one-year movement in any direction is hardly a trend. Changing demographics, particularly those brought on by essentially uncontrolled illegal immigration, are surely a factor. Kids with no or limited English skills are hardly going to run up impressive SAT scores, yet in some school districts, these kids are a near majority or a majority. One's views on immigration are irrelevant to demographic reality, and that's a topic for another time.

The accountability fad is also a significant factor. Driven by mandatory, high stakes testing, far too many schools and school districts focus almost exclusively on teaching those specific tricks—and I do mean tricks—necessary to pass the test that will determine whether teachers and principals keep their jobs. This leaves little time for actual learning, and certainly no time to prepare for a SAT test. By the way, did you want to use the same benchmark test for the first quarter that we used last year? I know it will kill another entire day, but the Central Office is demanding we mirror the state test again. Can you let me know by Thursday?

Most people don't know what a wonderful scam the SAT is--for the publisher and related industries, I mean. It is a very particular type of test designed to measure very particular things, and inevitably a multi-billion dollar empire and industry has sprung up around it, promising higher scores which, of course, hint at success in college and in life beyond.

As you know, depending on enrollment demands, I often teach a SAT preparation course. I'll be doing one next semester, in fact. Using several of the best—and most expensive—SAT preparation books on the market, my students raise their SAT scores from 150 to 600 points. I'd like to think this is so because of my amazing abilities as a teacher, but the truth is it's primarily due to two factors: the SAT is a very particular, predictable type of test which requires very particular and predictable knowledge and skills. Therefore, drill and repetition—familiarization—can and will increase scores. Basically, I can increase scores by teaching the kids what to expect and various strategies for maximizing their scores on the test. Kids who don't take my class tend to score lower regardless of intellect or demonstrated academic competence. Imagine that. It almost makes you question the ultimate value of such tests, and an increasing number of colleges no longer require them for admission. Perhaps they have the same questions.

Another major contributor to lowered scores is the fact that far more kids are going to college--and failing after accumulating crushing tuition debt—than at any time in history. The egalitarian notion that college is for everyone and a degree will inevitably lead to higher salaries and greater opportunity is more and more being proved fallacious, yet colleges continue to frantically recruit and Mr. Obama compounds the lunacy by blathering that everyone should go to college and by nationalizing the college loan industry under the cover of, of all things, the ObamaCare bill! Of course, he's also taxing indoor tanning businesses under ObamaCare, so why not nationalize student loans too?

School districts, including ours, find themselves laboring under state mandates for "college preparation" or "college readiness" to prepare all students, whether they want to attend college or have a prayer of success or not. Many even pay the fees for kids taking the SAT, though with our socialist-inflicted economic woes, I suspect kids will be picking up their own tab this year and in the future. That will probably raise scores a bit.

Charles Murray, you may recall, wrote that interesting and important article wherein he convincingly argues that the minimum IQ necessary for actual academic success in a college with genuinely college level academic requirements is about 115, which translates to the top 10-15% of the population. Coincidentally, this is about the proportion of the population that, until recent years, attended and graduated from college.

But with affirmative action, diversity preferences, rampant grade inflation, the universal use of graduate students as instructors, the profit motive and the universal establishment of all-encompassing remedial programs in colleges everywhere, graduation now commonly takes from five to six years. Unsurprisingly, such changes have grossly devalued the bachelor's degree. No longer can anyone be assured that an undergraduate degree, even from the Ivy League, is a guarantee of the acquisition of a given body of knowledge, a given skill set, or even competence in written and oral expression. In too many cases, it's entirely possible to graduate from college with a major in various nebulous "studies" with a minor in waking up in unfamiliar environs in a pool of one's own vomit.

How did all of this happen? Did an evil invading army impose it on us? Can't we resist what we know to be foolish and ineffective?

We did it to ourselves, and through self-interest, inattention and neglect, allow it to continue. We allowed the SAT tail to wag the college dog. We allowed the testing industry to build sufficient money, influence and political clout to drive rather than serve the needs of education. We allowed state and federal politicians to build lucrative bureaucratic empires under the banner of accountability. We allowed publicly funded universities to become glorified and obscenely expensive high schools. We did it, or at the least, we didn't stop it.

It's pretty discouraging, Bob. I'm left wondering if we have the will to reestablish merit and fiscal sanity. Oh well. When the bell rings, shut the door and teach like your hair is on fire, as always. That's what I do.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher