For more than 20 years, FairTest, a small nonprofit group headquartered on the second floor of an old house here, has been the No. 1 critic of America's big testing companies and their standardized tests. In 1987, when FairTest began publishing its list of colleges that did not require applicants to submit SAT's, there were 51; today there are 730, including Holy Cross, Bowdoin, Bates, Mount Holyoke and Muhlenberg....for all FairTest's impact, its days may be numbered. Never before has standardized testing so dominated American public education, thanks to the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind Law. Every child from grade 3 to high school must now take state tests. And the Bush administration is considering extending those tests to colleges.
"With N.C.L.B., a lot of people feel the debate is over," said Monty Neill, director of FairTest, officially the National Center for Fair and Open Testing. "The attitude seems to be, 'Testing is so pervasive, what's the point?' " Support from foundations has virtually dried up and individual donations have not made up the difference. "Our board has seriously discussed whether to fold the operation," Mr. Neill said.
I find this a pretty revealing comment. There's always a need for testing to be scrutinized, for tests to be evaluated, and for the public to be informed. But I've always sensed that FairTest's commentary was always anti-any-testing, not pro-good-testing. Now that testing is so pervasive, it's not helpful to bash tests rather than inform the public. ETS's president seems to agree:
Kurt Landgraf, the president of the testing service, which administers the SAT, wrote in an e-mail message: "Perhaps if they had been more attuned to the public's support for using tests to help teachers teach and students learn, then they might have had wider support."
Further along in the article, I don't quite get the point of NYT reporter Michael Winerip listing this as though it's a bombshell:
In a recent newsletter, FairTest printed an analysis of SAT results, using, and crediting, College Board research showing the direct correlation between family income and SAT scores. For every extra $10,000 a family earns, children's combined math and verbal scores go up 12 to 31 points. So children whose parents earn $50,000 score better on average (a combined 996 SAT) than students from families who earn $40,000 (967) but worse than students from families who earn $60,000 (1014).
Okay, who alive today doesn't know that kids with more money tend to have more educational advantages? It makes sense to me that kids from wealthier homes do better on all educational indices; if they didn't do better on the SAT, parents would question the efficacy of private schools and tutoring. Why this is being mentioned here as though it's surprising knowledge - or a valid test criticism - is beyond me.
At the same time, correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because A and B are correlated, that doesn't mean A causes B. B might cause A, or some C could be causing both to happen. Smarter parents might make more money, and their kids get both the nature and nurture benefits. We are trying to close the gap by offering all students better opportunities, but a test that doesn't reflect when kids know more material, either by virtue of schooling or parental largesse, is a pretty useless test.
Posted by kswygert at February 24, 2006 09:34 AM