Writing Boosts Decatur’s SAT Score
Decatur Metro | September 15, 2011According to data released from the Georgia Department of Education this morning [here the Excel file], 161 Decatur Seniors who took the SATs did 5 points better than their counterparts last year, with a total score of 1518. Decatur High’s statewide ranking also increased a bit to 59th (out of 406 schools), up from the 66th position last year. However scores still are a ways behind 2009 levels, when the school system ranked 30th in the state with a total score of 1577.
Both Math and Reading scores actually didn’t change at all vs. last year, at 503 and 516, respectively. The five point total score growth was due entirely to a five point increase in the school’s writing score to 499 from 494.
Last year, Superintendent Edwards noted that math scores had declined for 5 straight years, and since then the school system has made reversing that trend a priority. While the trend wasn’t technically reversed this year, With math down 2 points statewide, an unchanged score could be seen as a good indication halting declines seen in math previously.
Bigger picture, the GDOE release states…
Georgia’s public, private and home school students scored 1,445 on the SAT, a six point decrease from 2010. The national average was 1,500, also a six point decrease from 2010. Public school students scored 1,431 on the exam and the national average score was 1,483.
Latest from Decaturish
Anyone know about what percentage of DHS seniors take the SATs?
A very high percentage, I believe. Tried but cannot calulate using the table from the 8/31/2011 DM posting of the CSD enrollment table. It lists 159 seniors as of 8/23/2011 which is two fewer seniors than the 161 listed above as taking the SAT so a straight calculation is impossible. Probably some extra seniors showed up after the 8/23 count of 159 or the 161 includes some other grade levels or former DHS students who moved but are still listed as DHS in the SAT score files. Unless either the 161 numerator or 159 denominator counts are way off, the percentage must be real high. I’m glad but still disconcerted to see the contrast in scores with high schools in other areas that probably have high percentages taking the test too, e.g. Alpharetta. Our students, diverse as they are, seem capable of doing better.
The GA DOE Excel file is no better labelled than what I’ve seen come out much more informally from CSD. I couldn’t easily figure out what the four right-hand columns were. So maybe using raw Excel tables with confusing column and row labels, instead of using better formatted reports (which only takes a few minutes of extra effort–even a non-techie like me can do it), is a Georgia public education style.
“Our students, diverse as they are, seem capable of doing better.”
What throat-clearing nonsense. What if someone wrote in “our students, diverse as they are, seem capable of doing worse”?
Well, let me try to explain. Whenever posters state that they are surprised that our DHS scores aren’t higher compared to some suburban high schools, the assertion is made that those schools are less diverse. But my exposure to DHS, in person and by report, is that it is not a deprived environment and the students are pretty darn together. Decatur may be diverse but it doesn’t have the violence, gang activity, deprivation or other destructive elements that are associated with some metro high schools. So why not higher scores? I’ve always wanted to know more about the distribution of the scores. If the distribution is bimodal, then maybe performance is diverging along socioeconomic lines. But if it’s more of a bell-shaped curve, then what is the explanation for the scores? I’d expect the whole curve to be higher, especially given that such a high proportion of children are labelled as gifted at the elementary and middle school level. I’m honestly always shocked at the mean SAT score for DHS. I would guess it to be a lot higher.
yeah I guess I am also somewhat disappointed that we are not scoring higher than this. Anyone know the standard deviation or the median score?
Last year’s participation was around 90%. This looks to be about the same. I think we need to look at our demographic and socioeconomic data before comparing to other high schools. (like Alpharetta)
Um, its been a loooooong time since I took the SAT. Back when I was in school the highest score you could get was 1600, so 1445 was a great score
What is the max SAT score possible now? Is it still Math + Verbal or has it evolved?
The test is now three parts, with 800 each, so the max score is 2400.
Regardless of the quality of the school, research shows the SAT has a correlation of scores to income. http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/sat.shtml We have a significant disparity of income in Decatur, so a lot is lost when averages are reported.
Agreed that there is a correlation between scores and income.
I wonder, though, about the income disparity in Decatur. I think it may be less than it was 5 or 10 years ago.
Research shows that the SAT is largely an IQ test. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/6/373 The school board has about as much control over SAT performance as they do over the lunar cycle.
The rankings of state high school SAT averages is basically correlated with/a proxy for the makeup of those communities – NOT the quality of instruction at those schools.
That’s what I’ve always heard too. But given the huge proportion of “gifted” children in our system, wouldn’t you expect the mean IQ and thus the mean SAT to be higher for DHS? This has never made sense to me. The DHS students I meet seem pretty darn bright and I mean all of them, not just those with lawyers for parents. The dropout and pregnancy rate is real low compared to 10 years ago. I’m very surprised to see DHS mean SAT scores not in the top five statewide. I don’t have a guess as to what is not adding up but I suspect it is related to math and problem-solving skills since our reading test scores have been our strength in CSD for years.
I wish we didn’t have to care about this. Once people are done with higher, graduate, and doctoral education, no one cares about their SAT scores again. I’m not at all sure that, given the same education and experience, a higher SAT score means anything in terms of personal, social, or work success. But SAT scores determine how competitive a student is for college admission, so we have to understand CSD’s scores.
“I don’t have a guess as to what is not adding up but I suspect…”
more throat-clearing. It seems like you DO INDEED have a guess after all….
Since my children have been in CSD, I’ve often been surprised by how many times I’ve heard that the schools are great for those at the top and those at the bottom but not so good for those in the middle. I wonder: surely those identified as “gifted” are doing well on the SAT. But to increase the mean/median scores, wouldn’t it be that next tier down (those scoring, say, in the 80s on MAP throughout the years) that might be a targeted cohort for enrichment…that might translate into higher average SAT scores for the district on down the road?
Since my children have been in CSD, I’ve often been surprised by how many times I’ve heard that the schools are great for those at the top and those at the bottom but not so good for those in the middle. I wonder: surely those identified as “gifted” are doing well on the SAT. But to increase the mean/median scores, wouldn’t it be that next tier down (those scoring, say, in the 80s on MAP throughout the years) that might be a targeted cohort for enrichment…that might translate into higher average SAT scores for the district on down the road?
I apologize that this posted twice. The first is my husband’s moniker, the second mine…and I didn’t realize the first had worked!
“…surely those identified as “gifted” are doing well on the SAT”: I’m not so sure. I’ve always wondered about this but not seen the data. My guess is that we’ve overcalled “giftedness” and done a disservice to all the kids. The truly gifted brainiacs get a bland, dilute form of gifted education which is all that one can provide to such a large group of students. Meanwhile the high performing “ungifted” aren’t getting all the enrichment that they could profit from. I think the concept of differentiation, which focuses on serving each child where they are at with no ceiling on the level of instruction (for the brainiacs), and no floor for students who need remediation in some areas, is a better one that the current state-mandated categories of “gifted”, regular, and “special ed”, especially since some gifted children also have special ed needs (e.g. ADHD, autism spectrum, dyslexia, behavioral disorders). Unfortunately, some teachers provide differentiated instruction beautifully and others do not seem to know how to do it.
How are you proposing we identify the “truly gifted”? Your post suggests the current system isn’t exclusive enough, so whose credentials for that label should we use?
Good question that I cannot answer. But I’ve talked to researchers in the field who feel that there are ways to distinguish between the kinds of minds that are being understimulated by the current level of instruction and actually need more challenging and complex material in order to learn properly and not shut down. That’s as opposed to your above average smart but not brainiac (my term of course!) child who does well with enrichment, just as all children do, but is not disabled by the current level of instruction. But our current funding and administrative structures are not built to handle the brainiacs. The fourth grade brainiac may actually need college level math and remedial reading as well as ADHD medication, but socially and emotionally should be left in a general classroom. It takes a creative, dedicated, probably overworked teacher, instructional coach, and/or gifted instructor, plus resources, flexibility, and administrative support, to provide that. If we had a more selective and scientific identification of brainiacs, gave them the truly advanced (AND remedial instruction where appropriate) that they need in certain learning domains and then shifted the rest of the gifted resources to appropriate and differentiated enrichment for all students, we might have better instruction for all. Right now, the gifted program is desirable because it is a way to get more enrichment for one’s child. For some it’s also a status symbol, which is ironic, since many of the true brainiacs have social, behavioral, and learning needs.
I can get on board with most of that. Your solution strikes me as a way of de-institutionalizing an institution. Perhaps the first step is figuring out a way to undo the positive status / social pressures accompanied with having a child labelled gifted.
Well, the term “gifted” certainly is a barrier! Who doesn’t want their children to have gifts? They are all gifted in wonderful ways that have nothing to do with the neuroscience of learning. The trick is to find a neutral term. All parents are going to want their children to be “advanced” or “gifted” or “exceptional”. How about “cognitively asynchronous” which acknowledges that while one part of intellectual development may be way advanced, another part may be average or even behind, e.g. Einstein’s speech delay? Cog Asynch for short, much less prestigious.
To be fair to parents, everyone wants the most for their children and if “gifted” is what gets your children more enrichment, then everyone wants that label for them. If that enrichment was truly there for all children, albeit differentiated, then there would be less pressure for the label.
Well, I have a friend in Winston Salem who’s child is in the “Highly Academically Gifted” program. It’s called “HAG.” An acronym like that should take care of it.
Also the “cognitively asynchronous” label doesn’t work for a large number of gifted kids. My two kids test at 98th or above in all measures no matter what the test. They also have no social/speech/motor problems. There are a lot of kids in their shoes.
There is really no changing gifted instruction unless you address it at the state level. Georgia takes great pride in its gifted program so you won’t be seeing changes in the near future. It’s a state mandate … with state mandated cut scores.
I am not really buying the “middle kids suffer” statement. At the curriculum nights I attended, I was told that math instruction is differentiated based on pretests and that there could easily be gifted kids in a lower level math group and “average” kids in a top level math group, depending on the skill at hand. In many cases, children go to different classrooms depending on their pretest scores and their level can change every few weeks. It’s very fluid. The same is true for language arts and reading instruction, though I don’t believe they switch classrooms for those subjects.
HAG is a great name–much less sexy than “Links” or “Bridges” which suggests that some kids get access to a special extra something and others don’t! The truth is that every child should get an extra little something for whatever level they are at–a push towards wherever they need to go next. Some think that the groupings are way too large and undifferentiated within the group–e.g. all “gifted” children together even though that group is sometimes huge with a very wide range of capabilities and some of the “gifted” functioning at a very different level than other “gifted” children, but I think MAP testing and certain schools have improved on that. Best way to know is to ask your child. Who works with them, what do they do, where do they go? If that doesn’t make it clear, then talk to the particular teachers. Make sure that what is described on curriculum night is what is actually happening for your child.
Also, performing at the national 98th percentile is fantastic but quite common in Decatur and other high SES areas and not the same as being what I call a brainiac and the educational neuroscientists call cognitively asynchronous, i.e. a child who NEEDS the highly specialized instruction or they will perform poorly. The laws behind gifted instruction were originally intended to address those brainiac children who were performing poorly in school because regular instruction was not geared to the way they need to learn. Unfortunately, because gifted programs have gotten so large and been diluted into enrichment programs, rather than specialized instruction for those cognitively asynchronous brains that need it, those same brainiac children are still not getting the highly specialized instruction that they need. They are often bored, frustrated, and sometimes behavior problems, in the diluted enrichment programs.
There’s very little that can be done to increase SAT scores. As I said before, the SAT is largely a reflection of IQ, not educational success. Focusing on the 80th percentile kids will not bring up their SAT scores. It’s still a worthwhile idea, for educational reasons – maximizing everyone’s outcomes is the goal of education, after all.
Which reminds me, did anyone else read this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-if-the-secret-to-success-is-failure.html
Thought-provoking article! Some of the comments are real interesting too, if a bit discouraging, e.g. the observations that our society at large has moved away from character values and that those without character often feel “happy” so have no incentive to reflect upon their deficits and change.
Not just IQ but test-taking skills. A completely average, under-motivated and lackluster B/C student can totally knock the SAT out of the park. Similarly, a brilliant kid with anxiety or dyslexia can under-perform on the SAT simply because she can’t handle the pressure or her brilliance doesn’t fit the SAT mold. Which is why some colleges are now test-optional.
+ 1
In many high-performing districts, only the best and brightest are encouraged to take the SAT. This means the high score is inflated in those districts. In Decatur, all just about everyone takes the SAT, even those who are not necessarily “college-material.”
That used to be the case but I think things have changed.
Now even many technical schools ask for the SAT on applications. Cost used to be a factor that kept kids from taking the SAT but now there are fee waivers available. In the past, students with learning disabilities usually didn’t take the SAT but now there are accommodations available for students with special needs.
If anything I think more students from schools of all performance levels are taking the SAT.
I bet the higher performing the district, the more kids take the SAT. At the schools in more affluent areas, virtually all the grads will be going on to some type of higher education that requires the SAT.
Having had a lengthy and disheartening conversation with someone who has scored essays for an unnamed educational testing service, I wouldn’t put much stock in the assessment of the writing section for any of these type tests.
Interesting. I’ve always wondered about how well an objective test could score writing quality given that even professional editors disagree violently on everything from grammar to style. Maybe colleges would be better off just asking students to spontaneously write a paragraph when they come in for their interview. But then again many colleges don’t even do in-person interviews anymore which is a shame but all the more reason that SAT scores, GPAs, and AP tests are so important.
The 2011 SAT participation rate for CSD was 95%. Here’s the official CSD release that was distributed earlier today and is on the CSD website:
Decatur High School’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Scores
Decatur, GA (2011)- Recently-released Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores show Decatur seniors scoring above state and national averages. 89% of Decatur’s graduating class took the SAT. The state average SAT composite score dropped from 1453 to 1445. The national average SAT composite score dropped from 1509 to 1500. The Decatur average SAT composite score increased from 1513 to 1518.
The Critical Reading section on the SAT offers the highest scores in Decatur. The 516 average (800 is a perfect score on this sub-test) is 19 points above the nation and 31 points above Georgia.
Math continues to be an area where improvement is needed. Decatur math scores stayed at 503. State math scores dropped to 487.
The gap between Decatur black and white students dropped from 495 to 421. Black students made significant gains, particularly in critical reading as scores increased from 417 to 441. Decatur’s black students outperformed other black students in critical reading, math, and writing at the state and national levels.
Five-year trend data shows the state of Georgia tumbling in all areas: Reading -3, Math -3, and Writing, -2. Decatur scores have grown +5 in Writing. Participation rates vary widely in Georgia high schools. Some schools have less than 40% of their students take the SAT. Decatur High boasted a 95% participation rate in 2011.
Research indicates that students who take rigorous courses excel on the SAT. Decatur continues to offer a full array of Advanced Placement courses. In addition, Decatur High School has an International Baccalaureate (IB) Middle Years Programme in grades 9-10. Current efforts are underway to establish an International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme in grades 11-12. All students in grades 4-10 engage in IB programmes in City Schools of Decatur.
“I am proud of the direction to encourage students to take these tests and gain experience on this type of test-taking. It is an approach that says it is more important to allow students opportunities even when the outcome of more students taking these tests tends to lower the average,” shared Dr. Phyllis A. Edwards, Superintendent.
“We continue to be excited about the performance of all students in Decatur, particularly at Decatur High School. The work of teachers and students alike shine through these results.”
The College Board, administrator of the SAT, is a non-profit membership association whose mission is to connect students to college success and opportunity. The association is composed of more than 5,200 schools, colleges, universities, and other educational organizations. For more information, visit http://www.collegeboard.com.
Thanks Julie. I never got the release.
OK, that’s really weird. As soon as I wrote that, it appeared in my inbox. At 10:35pm.
Too funny! You know what they say, timing is everything!
Well, the term “gifted” certainly is a barrier! Who doesn’t want their children to have gifts? They are all gifted in wonderful ways that have nothing to do with the neuroscience of learning. The trick is to find a neutral term. All parents are going to want their children to be “advanced” or “gifted” or “exceptional”. How about “cognitively asynchronous” which acknowledges that while one part of intellectual development may be way advanced, another part may be average or even behind, e.g. Einstein’s speech delay? Cog Asynch for short, much less prestigious.
To be fair to parents, everyone wants the most for their children and if “gifted” is what gets your children more enrichment, then everyone wants that label for them. If that enrichment was truly there for all children, albeit differentiated, then there would be less pressure for the label.
Goofed again in thread placement. Sorry. Please delete.
I don’t put much stock into the SAT or any standardized test for determining success. I’ve done poorly on some, very well on others, and neither low nor high scores were a predictor of success or failure.
I’m wondering how much CSD teaches to the test versus other school districts with higher (and lower) SAT scores. I’m hoping CSD does not waste time teaching to the test.
Re SAT: My understanding is that you can’t really teach to the SAT. If a student hasn’t been reading voraciously or doing well in math for years, they can’t take a prep class and turn a 450 into a 650–I hear that improving by 10 to 50 points is the best one can expect. I have not heard that RMS or DHS teach to the SAT at all. What is a hard fact of life is that your choice of colleges and graduate and doctoral programs IS affected by standardized tests. Some colleges like Emory don’t even do admission interviews. Even though many of us agree that standardized tests do not predict the character traits and work attitudes and skills that ultimately determine success, most large higher educational institutions rely on them to sort out applicants.
The CRCT is where I think all public schools are teaching too much to the test. But I cannot blame them since funding and desireability of the schools is affected. And you’d be surprised at how many parents want MORE homework and MORE test prep at the elementary level. So school systems cannot win.