Update #2 (1/27/16): Based on the LinkedIn job notification I received yesterday, it seems that ETS will be responsible for overseeing essay grading on the new SAT. That’s actually a move away from Pearson, which has been grading the essays since 2005. Not sure what to think of this. Maybe that’s the bone the College Board threw to ETS to compensate for having taken the actual test-writing away. Or maybe they’re just trying to distance themselves from Pearson.
Update: Hardly had I published this post when I discovered recent information indicating that ETS is still playing a consulting role, along with other organizations/individuals, in the creation of the new SAT. I hope to clarify in further posts. Even so, the information below raises a number of significant questions.
Thanks to Akil Bello over at Bell Curves for finally getting an answer:
(In case the image is too small for you to read, the College Board’s Aaron Lemon-Strauss states that “with rSAT we manage all writing/form construction in-house. use some contractors for scale, but it’s all managed here now.” You can also view the original Twitter conversation here.)
Now, some questions:
What is the nature of the College Board’s contract with ETS?
Who exactly is writing the actual test questions?
Who are these contractors “used for scale,” and what are their qualifications? What percentage counts as “some?”
What effect will this have on the validity of the redesigned exam? (As I learned from Stanford’s Jim Milgram, one of the original Common Core validation committee members, many of the College Board’s most experienced psychometricians have been replaced.)
Are the education officials who are mandated the redesigned SAT in Connecticut, Michigan, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City aware that the test is no longer being written by ETS?
Why has this not been reported in the media? I cannot recall a single article, in any outlet, about the rollout of the new test that even alluded to this issue. ETS has been involved in writing the SAT since the 1940s. It is almost impossible to overstate what a radical change this is.
For those of you who haven’t been following the College Board’s recent exploits, the company is in the process of staging a massive, national attempt to recapture market share from the ACT. Traditionally, a number of states, primarily in the Midwest and South, have required the ACT for graduation. Over the past several months, however, several states known for their longstanding relationships with the ACT have abruptly – and unexpectedly – announced that they will be dropping the ACT and mandating the redesigned SAT. The following commentary was sent to me by a West Coast educator who has been closely following these developments.
For What It’s Worth
On December 4, 2015 a 15-member evaluation committee met in Denver, Colorado to begin the process of awarding a 5-year state testing contract to either the ACT, Inc. or the College Board. After meeting three more times (December 10, 11, and 18th) the evaluation committee awarded the Colorado contract to the College Board on December 21, 2015. The committee’s meetings were not open to the public and the names of the committee members were not known until about two weeks later.
Once the committee’s decision became public, parents complained that it placed an unfair burden on juniors who had been preparing for the ACT. Over 150 school officials responded by sending a protest letter to Interim Education Commissioner Elliott Asp. The letter emphasized the problem faced by juniors and also noted that Colorado would be abandoning a test for which they had 15 years of data for a new test with no data.
The protest letter did not complain about the truncated and closed-door process used to evaluate the two admissions tests. It also failed to raise questions about the still unknown quality and reliability of the new SAT. Asp responded by reaching an agreement with the College Board and ACT, Inc. to allow juniors to take the ACT this spring. The state’s schools would then switch to the PSAT and SAT during the next school year.
The decision in Colorado attracted virtually no national attention. It should have. In fact, what happened in Colorado is part of a largely unreported story that will affect millions of students and their families.
In 2012, the ACT replaced the SAT as America’s most used college admissions exam. By 2015, 1.9 million seniors took the ACT while 1.7 million took the SAT. Because the SAT figure includes over 200,000 international students, the actual US domestic market share difference between the ACT and the SAT was substantial and represented a real market reversal for the SAT.
Like any competitive business entity, the College Board refused to accept their loss of market share and reduced prestige. Led by their new president, David Coleman, the College Board launched an ambitious strategy to regain their traditional dominant position. The College Board hired key ACT officials and dramatically changed the SAT. The redesigned test eliminated the infamous “guessing” penalty, banished “arcane” vocabulary words, substantially reduced the number of geometry questions, copied the ACT’s Writing format, and made the essay optional. The SAT, first administered in 1926, jettisoned almost 90 years of theory and practice regarding test structure and content.
Redesigning the SAT was just the first step in the College Board’s plan to supplant the ACT as America’s premier college admissions test. Many states award contracts to one of the testing giants to provide exams to all their public school students. The ACT achieved a significant portion of its numerical gains by dominating this large and lucrative segment of the market. Not any more.
In January 2015, Michigan stunned ACT, Inc. by awarding a 3-year contract to the College Board. The Michigan contract flipped a long-standing ACT cohort of 120,000 students to the SAT. The College Board’s winning bid was $15 million less than the ACT, Inc. proposal.
The Michigan decision should have alarmed ACT, Inc. Apparently it did not. Complacent ACT, Inc. executives failed to make needed changes in their test. For example, the ACT’s Reading Comprehension section is clearly inferior to the SAT’s section. The ACT gives students 35 minutes to read four straightforward passages and answer 40 questions. In contrast, the SAT gives students 65 minutes to read 5 relatively complex passages and answer 52 questions. At the same time, ACT, Inc. officials did not exploit weaknesses in the College Board’s SAT roll out. At the present time, the College Board does not have a single authentic SAT that has been given to real students under real testing conditions. Believe it or not, the public will not see a real SAT with a real scale until July 2016.
ACT, Inc. officials who may have believed that the Michigan decision was an aberration were wrong. In December 2015, the College Board shocked ACT, Inc. by winning contracts in Illinois and Colorado. Both states claimed that the SAT was better aligned with their state standards. Given that the two tests are very similar, this claim is very debatable. A more logical explanation is that the College Board underbid ACT, Inc. by $1.37 in Illinois and $8.5 million in Colorado. Ironically, both ACT, Inc. and the College Board are nominally “non-profits;” however, it is obvious that the College Board is not hesitating to use its enormous wealth to buy market share at the expense of ACT, Inc. The College Board is approximately three times larger than ACT, Inc. based on total revenue and can, if it so chooses, consistently and systematically underbid ACT, Inc.
So where does this leave us? To paraphrase the Buffalo Springfield song, “For What It’s Worth,” there’s something happening here and what it is has become increasingly clear. The College Board is on the verge of regaining the SAT’s position as the nation’s dominant college admissions test. Its victories in Michigan, Illinois and Colorado combined with wins in New York City, Connecticut and New Hampshire will add over 600,000 students to the SAT’s enrollment total.
It seems that the College Board is not content to supplant the ACT exam; its true goal is to completely marginalize ACT, Inc. Given this significant development why aren’t journalists, educators, and writers speaking out and raising questions? For example, why aren’t business reporters pressing ACT, Inc. officials to explain how they will respond to what is clearly an existential threat to their company? ACT, Inc. is on the road to becoming the next “Radio Shack,” a quaint irrelevancy that will soon disappear.
From an educator’s perspective, why aren’t the nation’s geometry teachers asking why the SAT has abandoned its half-century commitment to geometry and has instead chosen to consign this time-honored subject to the dust bin of mathematics? Why aren’t the nation’s language arts teachers and writers asking why the College Board has abandoned its over half-century commitment to vocabulary and has instead blithely dismissed this time-honored subject as just a bunch of useless “arcane” words?
These and many other questions demand answers. Buffalo Springfield was right when they warned, “I think it’s time we stop.” We should all ask, “What’s that sound, everybody look what’s going down.”
A couple of posts back, I wrote about a recent Washington Post article in which a tutor named Ned Johnson pointed out that the College Board might be giving students an exaggeratedly rosy picture of their performance on the PSAT by creating two score percentiles: a “user” percentile based on the group of students who actually took the test; and a “national percentile” based on how the student would rank if every 11th (or 10th) grader in the United States took the test — a percentile almost guaranteed to be higher than the national percentile.
When I read Johnson’s analysis, I assumed that both percentiles would be listed on the score report. But actually, there’s an additional layer of distortion not mentioned in the article.
I stumbled on it quite by accident. I’d seen a PDF-form PSAT score report, and although I only recalled seeing one set of percentiles listed, I assumed that the other set must be on the report somewhere and that I simply hadn’t noticed them.
A few days ago, however, a longtime reader of this blog was kind enough to offer me access to her son’s PSAT so that I could see the actual test. Since it hasn’t been released in booklet form, the easiest way to give me access was simply to let me log in to her son’s account (it’s amazing what strangers trust me with!).
When I logged in, I did in fact see the two sets of percentiles, with the national, higher percentile of course listed first. But then I noticed the “download report” button, and something occurred to me. The earlier PDF report I’d seen absolutely did not present the two sets of percentiles as clearly as the online report did — of that I was positive.
So I downloaded a report, and sure enough, only the national percentiles were listed. The user percentile — the ranking based on the group students who actually took the test — was completely absent. I looked over every inch of that report, as well as the earlier report I’d seen, and I could not find the user percentile anywhere.
Unfortunately (well, fortunately for him, unfortunately for me), the student in question had scored extremely well, so the discrepancy between the two percentiles was barely noticeable. For a student with a score 200 points lower, the gap would be more pronounced. Nevertheless, I’m posting the two images here (with permission) to illustrate the difference in how the percentiles are reported on the different reports.
Somehow I didn’t think the College Board would be quite so brazen in its attempt to mislead students, but apparently I underestimated how dirty they’re willing to play. Giving two percentiles is one thing, but omitting the lower one entirely from the report format that most people will actually pay attention to is really a new low.
I’ve been hearing tutors comment that they’ve never seen so many students obtain reading scores in the 99th percentile, which apparently extends all the way down to 680/760 for the national percentile, and 700/760 for the user percentile. Well…that’s what happens when a curve is designed to inflate scores. But hey, if it makes students and their parents happy, and boosts market share, that’s all that counts, right? Shareholders must be appeased.
Incidentally, the “college readiness” benchmark for 11th grade reading is now set at 390. 390. In contrast, the I confess: I tried to figure out what that corresponds to on the old test, but looking at the concordance chart gave me such a headache that I gave up. (If anyone wants to explain it me, you’re welcome to do so.) At any rate, it’s still shockingly low — the benchmark on the old test was 550 — as well as a whopping 110 points lower than the math benchmark. There’s also an “approaching readiness” category, which further extends the wiggle room.
A few months back, before any of this had been released, I wrote that the College Board would create a curve to support the desired narrative. If the primary goal was to pave the way for a further set of reforms, then scores would fall; if the primary goal was to recapture market share, then scores would rise. I guess it’s clear now which way they decided to go.
Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks the College Board might be trying to pull some sort of sleight-of-hand with scores for the new test.
In this Washington Post article about the (extremely delayed) release of 2015 PSAT scores, Ned Johnson of PrepMatters writes:
Here’s the most interesting point: College Board seems to be inflating the percentiles. Perhaps not technically changing the percentiles but effectively presenting a rosier picture by an interesting change to score reports. From the College Board website, there is this explanation about percentiles:
A percentile is a number between 0 and 100 that shows how you rank compared to other students. It represents the percentage of students in a particular grade whose scores fall at or below your score. For example, a 10th-grade student whose math percentile is 57 scored higher or equal to 57 percent of 10th-graders.
You’ll see two percentiles:
The Nationally Representative Sample percentile shows how your score compares to the scores of all U.S. students in a particular grade, including those who don’t typically take the test.
The User Percentile — Nation shows how your score compares to the scores of only some U.S. students in a particular grade, a group limited to students who typically take the test.
What does that mean? Nationally Representative Sample percentile is how you would stack up if every student took the test. So, your score is likely to be higher on the scale of Nationally Representative Sample percentile than actual User Percentile.
On the PSAT score reports, College Board uses the (seemingly inflated) Nationally Representative score, which, again, bakes in scores of students who DID NOT ACTUALLY TAKE THE TEST but, had they been included, would have presumably scored lower. The old PSAT gave percentiles of only the students who actually took the test.
For example, I just got a score from a junior; 1250 is reported 94th percentile as Nationally Representative Sample percentile. Using the College Board concordance table, her 1250 would be a selection index of 181 or 182 on last year’s PSAT. In 2014, a selection index of 182 was 89th percentile. In 2013, it was 88th percentile. It sure looks to me that College Board is trying to flatter students. Why might that be? They like them? Worried about their feeling good about the test? Maybe. Might it be a clever statistical sleight of hand to make taking the SAT seem like a better idea than taking the ACT? Nah, that’d be going too far.
I’m assuming that last sentence is intended to be taken ironically.
One quibble. Later in the article, Johnson also writes that “If the PSAT percentiles are in fact “enhanced,” they may not be perfect predictors of SAT success, so take a practice SAT.” But if PSAT percentiles are “enhanced,” who is to say that SAT percentiles won’t be “enhanced” as well?
Based on the revisions to the AP exams, the College Board’s formula seems to go something like this:
(1) take a well-constructed, reasonably valid test, one for which years of data collection exists, and declare that it is no longer relevant to the needs of 21st century students.
(2) Replace existing test with a more “holistic,” seemingly more rigorous exam, for which the vast majority of students will be inadequately prepared.
(3) Create a curve for the new exam that artificially inflates scores.
(4) Proclaim students “college ready” when they may be still lacking fundamental skills.
(5) Find another exam, and repeat the process.
Among the partial truths disseminated by the College Board, the phrase “guessing penalty” ranks way up there on the list of things that irk me most. In fact, I’d say it’s probably #2, after the whole “obscure vocabulary” thing.
Actually, calling it a partial truth is generous. It’s actually more of a distortion, an obfuscation, a misnomer, or, to use a “relevant” word, a lie.
Let’s deconstruct it a bit, shall we?
It is of course true that the current SAT subtracts an additional ¼ point for each incorrect answer. While this state of affairs is a perennial irritant to test-takers, not to mention a contributing factor to the test’s reputation for “trickiness,” it nevertheless serves a very important purpose – namely, it functions as a corrective to prevent students from earning too many points from lucky guessing and thus from achieving scores that seriously misrepresent what they actually know.
There is, however, no automatic correlation between guessing and answering questions correctly or incorrectly. (If there weren’t, “how many answers should you eliminate before you guess?” debates would not exist.) It is entirely possible to make a wild guess that ends up being correct or, conversely, to be absolutely certain about an answer and be absolutely wrong.
Students are not penalized when they guess and answer questions correctly; they are penalized when they guess and answer questions incorrectly – just as they are penalized when they do not guess and answer questions incorrectly.
So why not simply the call the penalty what it is: a wrong-answer penalty designed to prevent people from getting undeserved high scores?
Well… this is where that whole rhetoric thing comes into play. This is one of those beautiful moments in which theory and reality meet. As a matter of fact, I couldn’t have designed a more perfect example myself.
You see, the use of the phrase “guessing penalty” is not just a matter of semantics but rather a clever rhetorical marketing trick.
It is, first of all, a euphemism. It replaces something unpleasant (students lose points as a result doing something wrong) with something far more palatable (students lose points as a result of daring to do something courageous).
At another level, it can be interrupted as an appeal to ethos, or justice. It is of course blatantly injust to punish students for doing something as innocuous as guessing. The goal is to emphasize the inherent unfairness of the old exam and thus to highlight the comparative fairness of the new test.
By extension, the phrase can also be interpreted as a subtle attempt at pathos, or appeal to emotion. Its goal is to evoke pity for the poor, trembling students cowering in fear of losing that extra quarter point. They’re pretty sure they know the answer but just can’t bring themselves to fill in that bubble. Oh, the horror! The new SAT, in contrast, would never be so cruel.
The so-called guessing penalty therefore serves as “evidence” that the old test should be changed, indeed must be changed. The fact that it is based on a distortion is irrelevant – the distortion is consistent with the College Board’s thesis, and thus piddling details such as reality cannot be allowed to interfere.
In reality, by the way, I’ve encountered a couple of students who panicked and skipped too many questions when it counted, but a much, much bigger problem has traditionally involved getting students to actually take the quarter-point penalty into account and stop trying to answer every question. Even when they are walked through the math over and over (and over) again, they sometimes still don’t listen. In certain instances, also, that kind of strategizing is simply too challenging. Even the students who panicked and skipped too many questions were, to be perfectly honest, still a little shaky in some areas. The scores they ended up with did accurately reflect what they knew.
But of course people who have never actually taught tend not to know these things.
So now for an alternate version, one that you probably won’t be hearing from the College Board anytime soon:
The removal of the quarter-point corrective for incorrect answers will ultimately make the SAT easier to game – indeed, it is most likely intended to do so.
Assuming that answer choice letters are evenly distributed, students not aiming for top scores will be able to select pre-determinated sections of the test (for example, fiction passages) on which they can fill in the same letter to every question and virtually guarantee that they will earn a certain number of points.
Until now, this type of strategy has been applicable only to the ACT; making it relevant to the SAT as well will deprive the ACT of a notable advantage and may ultimately play a role in helping the SAT to shed its reputation for trickiness and recapture some of its market share. For students who are unable to strategize effectively this way on their own, the tutoring industry will of course continue to step in and help.
Furthermore, the reduction of five answer choices to four will give students an even higher chance of selecting the correct responses to questions that they have not the slightest idea how to answer.
Taken together, these factors may (if it suits the narrative the College Board wants to promote) also result in a very slight but statistically significant uptick in scores, designed to suggest that more students are “college and career ready” when they are actually not.
Isn’t rhetoric beautiful?
In a Washington Post article describing the College Board’s attempt to capture market share back from the ACT, Nick Anderson writes:
Wider access to markets where the SAT now has a minimal presence would heighten the impact of the revisions to the test that aim to make it more accessible. The new version [of the SAT], debuting on March 5, will eliminate penalties for guessing, make its essay component optional and jettison much of the fancy vocabulary, known as “SAT words,” that led generations of students to prepare for test day with piles of flash cards.
Nick Anderson might be surprised to discover that “jettison” is precisely the sort of “fancy” word that the SAT tests.
But then again, that would require him to do research, and no education journalist would bother to do any of that when it comes to the SAT. Because, like, everyone just knows that the SAT only tests words that no one actually uses.
That reminds me of a discussion I had a couple of days ago with a teacher friend who was complaining that her students clung too rigidly to one side of an argument, that they had trouble understanding nuances.
“V.,” I said. “Your students probably don’t even know what nuance is. The concept is foreign to them. It’s a word they see on a flash card when they’re studying for the SAT and forget five seconds later.”
The people with us, both highly educated adults (and one the parent of a high school student), laughed. It had never occurred to either of them that “nuance” could be considered a difficult word.
I was therefore obliged to give them my standard spiel about how many words that 16 year-old who never pick up a book would consider obscure, would actually be considered perfectly common by educated 50 year-olds. But since those 50 year-olds can only remember the SAT from the perspective of a high school student, they remain convinced that the words it tests are actually obscure.
They continued to laugh, but uncomfortably. I think they were both a little horrified.
So sorry Nick. Next time you write about the SAT, you might want to actually look at some tests and see what kind of vocabulary gets tested there. Either that, or you should make sure to avoid words like “jettison” and “stagnated” (which I happened to notice you used later in the article).
Or maybe you should just make some flash cards for your readers.