SB1360: Baloney on Rye ADDENDUM

This is an addendum to our previous blog, “SB1360: Baloney on Rye is Still Full of Baloney” :

It has been brought to our attention that it is unclear whether the SAT score targets described in SB 1360 reflect scores from the current SAT or from the “newly designed” SAT, which will debut later this year (info here and here). The redesigned SAT will have a maximum score of 1600, compared to the current SAT maximum score of 2400. Since the exam is yet to be administered, the percentile ranking of scores on the new SAT can only be predicted. It is estimated that a score of 1200 (that required to be exempt from Florida’s U.S. History EOC) will be closer to the 75th percentile on the new SAT (not the 15% we stated in our blog).

Additional comparisons with SB1360’s target scores for the ACT, suggest that exemptions for Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2 EOCs may be closer to the 50th to 75th percentiles, respectively. So, SB1360’s required scores may be more “rigorous” than we first thought, but will they be appropriate? It turns out neither the old nor the new the SAT assess math skills beyond basic geometry. Why are we allowing scores on an assessment that does not test beyond basic geometry to exempt students from their Algebra 2 EOC, which covers up to Trigonometry concepts? We hope the Senate Education committees will address this.

Since there are dramatic differences between the performance level associated with the same reported score, we feel SB1360 needs to define exactly which SAT exam (old or new) it is referring to. We also question why Florida would put into statute target scores from an exam that is yet to be administered (even if it does have the same name)? Are Florida students expected to field test the new SAT and then have those scores used for accountability purposes? Remember how well that worked out for the 2015 FSA?

Also, there are significant concerns regarding the math portions of the newly designed SAT, especially for low income and English language learner (more here). The new format of math questions will require higher level verbal and reasoning skills and is predicted to put English language learners and low income children at a significant disadvantage. Given the ever increasing population of low income, English language learner, and immigrant students in our public schools (Miami Dade is currently expecting ~8,000 new immigrant students this school year), why is Florida choosing an exam that would put those students, their schools and districts, at a distinct disadvantage. How is that a fair accountability assessment?

Our initial blog may have underestimated the “rigor” of SB1360’s target scores. If they represent scores from the new SAT, they may be more “rigorous” than we thought. Does this make us feel any better about this bill?

No.

Reviewing the new SAT only raises more questions about the fairness of an accountability system that uses these scores as metrics and in this manner. Students with high standardized test scores (even in subjects unrelated to the course they are taking) will be exempt from taking final exams/EOCs. Students with lower standardized test scores (many who will be immigrants, disadvantaged and/or english language learners), will not only be required to take the exams, but they will be worth 30% of their course grades and (for Algebra 1) passing will be required for graduation. “Smart kids” (often wealthier, white students) will no longer need to take the U.S. History or other state EOCs. They will be exempt from the Algebra 2 EOC based on scores that don’t test the course content; their course grades will reflect their classroom performance and will not suffer from poor performance on the EOC. It appears that students and schools with high test scores (like Seminole County, which has been lobbying hard for this bill, originally calling it the “Seminole Solution”) will require significantly less testing than their less advantaged counterparts.

This does not describe a fair, equitable, uniform education system. This describes the misuse of standardized test scores.

This will not “fix” anything.

This is Accountabaloney.

Advertisements

One thought on “SB1360: Baloney on Rye ADDENDUM

  1. Pingback: SB1360: Baloney on Rye is Still Full of Baloney | accountabaloney

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s