Has The SAT Test Undergone A Backlash?

 By Elwood Watson

           

    There is a good chance that if you were a high school junior or senior applying to a four-year college or university you’ve seen a question like the following. “Select the lettered pair that best expresses a relationship similar to that expressed in the original pair:

 

BOW:VIOLIN

(A)   music:piano

(B)   brass:trumpet

(C)   drumstick:drum

(D)   string:guitar

(E)    note:flute

 

    The correct answer is C. From its conception 86 years ago in 1926, the scholastic aptitude test (more commonly known as the SAT) has been administered to thousands of high school students who have dreams of being selected to attend the college or university of their choice. Over the past few years, the SAT has undergone some significant changes. For one, in 2005, the analogy portion like the aforementioned question example was replaced with longer reading comprehension passages and a writing section. The perfect score that a student could obtain changed from 1600 to 2400. 

 

  The test has had a virtual stranglehold on parents, teachers and students. A large number of teachers gear their subject matter toward the test. Parents reach deep into their pockets to shell out as much as thousands of dollars for prep coaches, software and other assorted materials in an effort to help their children secure those high scores that are often the gateway for admission to many of our nation’s elite institutions. Many students have measured their intelligence by the test. For others, it has been a crucial portion of their self-worth. 

 

      Some teachers and guidance counselors view students with high SAT scores but with a mediocre grade point average as “lazy” or an” underachiever.” On the contrary, a student with low SAT scores and a high GPA is seen as “hardworking” or an “overachiever.” Rarely, does anyone rationalize the fact that such students are either good or poor test takers. Personally, I believe a major reason many students are entering college unable to write coherent paragraphs, let alone quality good papers and requiring remedial courses to master material that they should have learned in high school is these tests. The fact is too many high school teachers and administrators are spending too much misplaced energy on teaching to a largely problematic test as opposed to having students reading literature, writing essays and analyzing various critical works. To be blunt, the SAT has eclipsed the high school curriculum that high school students are supposed to learn.

      From time to time, the SAT has found itself at the center of controversy in many secondary and higher education institutions. Just last month, a blue ribbon panel of experts on higher education recently asked a number of colleges to reconsider or possibly end their SAT admissions mandates. The panel came to the conclusion that SAT scores are often a less than accurate predictor of college performance. They also reiterated the well-known fact that studies have shown that many lower income and students of color are often at a financial and cultural disadvantage when taking the test.   

            There are a number of higher education institutions that have decided to forego the “SAT as gospel” message. Rather, such schools have undertaken a variety of factors in an effort to assemble a well-qualified and diverse student body. High school curriculum, leadership, community activism, personal life histories and moral character are just a few. According to Jesse Mermell, executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, a Boston-based advocacy group, more than 40 institutions have dropped admissions tests since 2004. Among these schools are highly selective ones such as Smith College in Northampton, Mass. and Wake Forest University in N.C.     

         While there have been a few statistics over the years proving that the SAT can distinguish strong students from weaker ones, recent evidence and the emerging findings from NACAC have proven that Scholastic Aptitude Test measures one thing – a student’s ability at taking the test. It does not measure characteristics such as intelligence, creativity, motivation and perseverance. These are the qualities that a student must possess a certain amount of if he or she intends to successfully earn a bachelor’s degree. It is good to see that many parties – high schools, admissions offices and others — are working together to create an  admissions process that encompasses a holistic manner of selecting students for college as opposed to relying either primarily or disproportionately on standardized tests like the SAT that fail to measure crucial elements of a person. This is particularly true in the case of students of color.     

Dr. Elwood Watson is a full professor of History and African American Studies at East Tennessee State University. He is the author of several award-winning academic articles, several anthologies and is the author of the book Outsiders Within: Black Women in the Legal Academy After Brown v. Board  (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Spring 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The NCLBification of Higher Education

By Emery Petchauer

One of the most significant yet subtle ways that the No Child Left Behind Act has affected higher education is by shaping the requirements for students intending to become teachers. In this way, although NCLB is a federal act directed at K-12 education, its effects have traveled up the educational ladder into higher education.

Here is how it works:

In order for teacher education programs to be accredited by states or bodies such as National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, programs must graduate Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT), which is a central aspect of NCLB. Generally, being highly qualified means completing an accredited teacher education program and passing certification tests (e.g. Praxis I, Praxis II in most states) — all in the discipline one plans to teach. While these are not new ideas, what is new is requiring students to pass the first part of a certification exam (again, often Praxis I) before allowing them to declare education as a major or take upper division classes. Making students pass the first part of a certification exam helps ensure that graduates will be highly qualified; it is a gatekeeper that disallows students from matriculating through their programs and getting to senior year with little chance of graduating as highly qualified. To state this process more simply, in many states such as Pennsylvania, students must now test into teacher education programs.

These policies and implications do not have significant effects on large universities with significant numbers of students planning to become teachers. In fact, it is likely that the policies go undetected by most faculty members. Students who cannot pass the tests for a variety of reasons (e.g., deficient high school educations, have not mastered dominant culture standardized testing norms) often change majors or transfer to institutions that can offer them more support to pass exams. At many large institutions, enough students are able to pass the exams on their own, so programs maintain a critical mass of students graduating as HQT to support their accreditation.

However, the policies and implications have significant effects on smaller institutions, particularly those that serve students who have been underserved by their secondary schools and have been on the lower end of the high school achievement (or opportunity) gap. In essence, these students have a short amount of time (about three semesters) to develop the dominant culture norms and skills of standardized tests and fill any gaps in reading, writing or math so that they can pass the entrance exam, declare their majors and take upper level classes. As one can imagine, this situation can create incredible amounts of stress for students, which further inhibits optimum performance.

Overall, this system — or what I call the NLCBification of higher education — creates more barriers for working class and ethnic minority students to enter the teaching profession.

Dr. Emery Petchauer is an assistant professor of education at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania; his current

research includes teacher preparation for ethnic minority students particularly at HBCUs and how involvement in hip-hop implicates students’ educational approaches, experiences, and lives.

Being Black, Male and Educated in Today’s World

By James Ewers

There are far too many black males being portrayed as useless citizens in our society.  We see pictures of us being sent to jail or being expelled from school.  Some of us still turn a blind eye to what is going on around us.  The CNN Special, “Black in America” pointed out that African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, yet we commit 49 percent of the homicides.  That statistic should send a sobering message to all of us, black and white, who see ourselves as difference-makers. 

 

 

Obviously, we as African Americans have come a long way since the days of segregation.  While our gains educationally have been significant, we still have a very long way to go.  The achievement gap, according to some, has increased between black children and white children.  Some of this achievement gap data is being played out every day.  Recently, I went to the public library to check out some books and made a casual observation about who was in the library.  While some may disagree, there is more value in some African American homes placed on an Xbox and a Nintendo Wii than getting a library card and using it.  It doesn’t matter how proficient your child is on either game as the more compelling question is, can they pass the third grade proficiency test?  I don’t have anything against these games. However they can’t be put ahead of education.

 

 

We can’t undo the past yet we can be better forecasters about the future of our young African American boys if we become more proactive.  Educating African American boys might arguably be the single greatest priority in our communities. The biggest piece in this educational equation is that education must be viewed as invaluable in our quest for success.  It can’t be seem as a maybe but should be seen as a must!  National statistics show that young black boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled before completing high school than any other group. 

 

 

There are some factors that have led to this statistic being what it is.  First, a dearth of successful African American role models has contributed to young male students not seeing enough of us and they therefore think dreaming big dreams is out of the question. Therefore invariably when you ask a young African American boy what he wants to do, he will give you the name of a sports star or a music star.  As a product of the legitimate old school, I knew as much about Dr. King, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and Whitney Young as I did Jim Brown, Willie Mays and Jessie Owens.  Maybe we need to invest in copies of Jet, Essence and Ebony so that our boys can see successful African American males in business, the military, education, law and medicine. 

 

 

Behavior has also contributed to this dilemma. Fighting and destroying school property only creates a negative opinion about young black males. Simply put, knowing how to comport yourself will put you in a favorable position with the education community. Another factor is the lack of diversity training in many of our school systems. There are teachers who are simply ill-equipped to interact successfully with young black males. It is my thinking that diversity training should be mandated for every school system.

 

 

Valuing education means talking about it in our homes, then our boys will have an increased chance to become an educated black male. Of course being black, male and educated brings on increased responsibility and opportunity. If you have these three characteristics, you have a chance to be a change agent each day. For those of us who are blessed to have a college degree it means that we must do more. Here are two ways of thinking about being black, male and educated. I believe the vast majority of people will give us the respect that we have earned. I would like to believe that our opinions about matters of the day are valued and valuable. On the other side are those who fear us because of our color, our maleness and our education. We become instant threats to some who are unwilling to accept us because we bring new ideas and inclusion to the process. Maybe in the end that is the dual role for those of us who are black, male and educated; that is, we are both respected and feared. 

 

Dr. Ewers is the associate dean for student affairs and director of community partnerships at Miami University Middletown in Ohio. He is the author of Perspectives From Where I Sit: Essays on Education, Parenting and Teen Issues. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“But professor? You’re not white, you’re German, right?”

By Emery Petchauer

As a proverbial “vanilla brother” (as my Dean affectionately refers to me) at an HBCU, on the daily I am in a position to experience and explore racial identity and its implications on classroom pedagogy. This applies to my own racial identity, that of my students, and how we co-construct one another. Occasionally, such rewarding conversations are prefaced by a tentative, “No offense, but how come white people always…?” from a student (a blog entry for another time). In one such conversation, however, as I attempted to nuance, well, why white people always…, “Keisha” responded by saying with seriousness and slight confusion, “But professor, you’re not white, you’re German, right?”

 

As I mused on this comment over the next few days and its implications on classroom pedagogy, I considered two important details.

 

First, Keisha was biracial, which made me contemplate how her own racial identity shaped how she constructed mine. In fact, later in the semester she told me that she had German ancestry, which added further complexity to her judgment about the categorization of my German/Austrian surname as “colored.”

 

Second, in this particular class, students were aware of my knowledge and experiences in hip-hop due in part to my research on the topic in conjunction with education. Consequently, I wondered how hip-hop as a form of (sub)cultural capital and performances thereof may have mediated her negotiation of my race.

 

These details brought me back to one of Bakari Kitwana’s theses in Why White Kids Love Hip-Hop (which, really, is about much more than white kids): that there is a “new racial politics” emerging with and through the post-baby boom generation (i.e., the students who sit in college classrooms today). Many anecdotes such as the one above may be more emblematic of these new ways that young adults are constructing race than they are of collegial or youthful ignorance. Other anecdotes many professors could cite from their classrooms that might be (re)considered in this light are the “why-would-I-major-in-Black-Studies” comment; the “people-aren’t-really-racist-anymore” opinion; or, most recently, the “if-Obama-can-do-it-everyone-can-do-it” argument.

 

Though it is easy to attribute such anecdotes to ignorance, what are the pedagogical implications of believing that new ways of constructing race among ethnic minority students are, at least in part, responsible for such anecdotes or the one above with Keisha?

 

Effective, culturally-responsive pedagogy starts where students are. Consequently, learning is more meaningful when faculty members work in student-centered classrooms to understand how it is that students construct their own racial identities and those of others. Whether we agree with these new racial politics among students or not, they can be useful educational starting points that can implicate discipline-specific material and facilitate integrated rather than compartmentalized learning.

Dr. Emery Petchauer is an assistant professor of education at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Value of Diversity Among Institutions

By Frank Wu

We have confused two propositions: we have come to believe that aspiring to greater excellence as an institution of higher education means striving to become the same as other schools. In particular, in the pursuit of higher rankings, we have confused excellence with exclusivity. Thus, it would be easy to search and replace the names and the logos from the viewbooks of most universities with that of their nearest rival, and no reader would be any the wiser. We have forgotten the value of diversity among institutions, even as we celebrate diversity within institutions. Yet the rankings are only an excuse. Even without surveys, too many of us seem to share exactly the same vision for our colleges.

One of the great strengths of the American system of higher education as a whole, however, is that it boasts such a range of offerings. If every public university tries to be one of the top 10 public universities in research funding, or every liberal arts college one of the most elite, we as a society and individuals will be worse off rather than better off. We will have forgotten the value of missions and access.

There are so many schools with unique identities: they are religious, historically black, single-sex, especially strong in specific disciplines, and so on. They have served distinct populations by giving more than a credential. They have become the center of communities. Even as mainstream institutions open up to all comers who are qualified, it is still worthwhile to have places where the minority is the majority, where an individual can be intellectually challenged without the burden of being compelled to represent a group. We may not always agree with the goals of such places, but that is exactly the point of having so many options. (We might be uneasy, for example, that the argument about institutional diversity was advanced by Virginia Military Institute in its unsuccessful effort, as a state school, to remain all-male; in part, the Supreme Court was skeptical that institutional diversity was actually a goal of the state. Nonetheless, there are institutions that contribute in a constitutionally permissible manner to institutional diversity.)

There have been so many schools that have balanced the importance of generating new knowledge with the responsibility to disseminate existing knowledge, but whose leaders face demands to shift toward research and away from teaching. All faculties claim to value both research and teaching, but the allocation of resources and the distribution of rewards shows that they are not valued equally. The mix is beneficial for all of us. There is nothing wrong with a school becoming more selective in its admissions, but there is something wrong with all schools doing so. Land grant schools and urban schools, among others, were founded to serve the public more generally and that vision remains worthwhile.

As Oscar Wilde once said, the only thing worse than not getting what you want is getting it. Ironically, the would-be consumers of higher education of as product who would like to have exclusivity do not realize that most of them will be turned away if to achieve that cachet.

Frank H. Wu is the author of Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White; he was Dean of Wayne State University Law School and Professor at Howard University Law School.