Georgia 2013 COLLEGE-BOUND SENIORS SAT SCORES

[n2doc]

2013 COLLEGE-BOUND SENIORS SAT SCORES BY FAMILY INCOME
READING MATH WRITING TOTAL
$ 0 - $20,000 435 462 429 1326
$20,000 - $40,000 465 482 455 1402
$40,000 - $60,000 487 500 474 1461
$60,000 - $80,000 500 511 486 1497
$80,000 - $100,000 512 524 499 1535
$100,000 - $120,000 522 536 511 1569
$120,000 - $140,000 526 540 515 1581
$140,000 - $160,000 533 548 523 1604
$160,000 - $200,000 539 555 531 1625
More than $200,000 565 586 563 1714

From:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/10/07/PDFscores-2013-SAT.pdf
By Maureen Downey
Bob Schaeffer of FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testingsent me a note and a chart related to the AJC story on how closely Georgia's SAT scores align with family income. The FairTest chart draws from the College Board's College-Bound Seniors 2013: Total Group Profile Report and College-Bound Seniors 2006: Total Group Profile Report. (I could not drop this chart into the earlier SAT blog entry so I am creating a new one but this relates to our earlier discussion today.)

Here is what Schaeffer had to say about the chart:
The SAT is -- if nothing else -- a strong measure of accumulated opportunity. Kids born into economically comfortable families have incredible advantages from the moment of their conception: adequate maternal nutrition and prenatal care; a much higher probability of normal birth weight; homes with less exposure to allergens, pesticides, heavy metals, etc.; parents who read to them and use rich vocabularies; regular medical checkups and intervention; quality day care; good neighborhood schools; nearby libraries and other cultural institutions; access to tutoring and test prep; etc. All have been linked to higher test scores.

Given this sharply unequal access to factors long-proven to improve test performance, no one should be surprised that kids from high-income families do better on the SAT (and ACT). The societal problem arises when test scores are used to predict the capacity to do college level academic work, not look back at accumulated opportunity.

more
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2013/oct/07/chart-sat-scores-and-influencing-factors/

[elleng]

1. Naturally.

[duffyduff]

2. SATs and ACTs don't measure "accumulated opportunity."

All they measure is preparation for college, not intelligence, not future ability, not "success" in college. They merely give an indication to admissions officers what courses students took in high school.

[Igel]

5. They are, however, correlated with academic success in college.

They reflect preparation.

Low scores reflect lesser vocabulary, lower reading abilities, and weaker math skills. When you're put into a calculus class you don't have time to worry about your pre-cal. So you don't take calculus, and go into remedial math. Which drags things out and is more expensive.

But not only does it reflect prior achievement, but prior achievement reflects both study skills and test-taking skills. And if lack of background knowledge can be a problem, lack of study and testing skills is often fatal.

[AllyCat]

3. And...not a surprise.

If you have less stress and chaos in your life, it's easy to work ahead, be able to focus on your studies, and take extracurricular options to enrich learning.

[savebigbird]

4. ...and to hire a tutor...

N/A

[Igel]

6. More irritating is the refrain,

"When am I going to use that?"

Which many of my kids hear from their parents, who didn't pay attention when they were in high school. Most of my poorer kids have parents with less education than the children of engineers, HR folk, lawyers. That's why they're poorer, for the most part.

The kids of those wealthier just shake their heads at those who are poorer, not because of wealth but because of their attitudes towards learning and assignments. I shake my head when I have a poor kid who just doesn't understand that turning in work two weeks after the test is a waste of time. As far as he's concerned, why does the timing matter. He did the assignment. Causality--that perhaps not doing the assignments contributed to that failing test grade a week or two before--is fuzzy when it involves non-concrete causes.