interestedcitizen Anonymous

If things are so great, explain the following. From 1992 to 2006, mean SAT scores statewide increased 118 points, from 874 to 991. Locally, they increased from 867 in 1992 to 985 in 1996, and then began a steady decline to 809 where they were in 2006. The gap between the LISD mean SAT score and the state mean was as low as 3 points in 1993. Today, that gap is 182 points. Granted, we narrowed that gap 7 points between 2005 and 2006, but we still have a long way to go. The year after Lewis arrived as Supt., mean SAT scores declined four points, then they rebounded. They were just one point higher in 2006 than they were when Lewis arrived. Between 2004 and 2006, the state SAT mean increased 4 points, meaning that, even though we gained one point, we lost ground against the state by 3 points.

Why don't we have 2007 SAT results? Highland Park has theirs and they post them on their website. We should post our SAT scores on our website if they are anything to shout about.

Our mean SAT score in 2006 was 809. To put that number in perspective, on a national level, students from households earning less than $10,000 per year had an SAT mean math and verbal score of 876. That group, on a national level, has the lowest SAT mean scores. Our SAT mean score is lower by 67 points than the SAT mean for the lowest performing group nationally.

Remember what Lewis said on September 30, 2003. He said Lancaster would be the best district in the nation in five years, if we just gave him $75 million. We gave him $110 million and his first completed project was a luxurious athletic complex. He scrimped on academic space and focused on athletic facilities. We have a long way to go to just catch up with the lowest performing group on the SAT. We are not on course to being the best in the nation by September of 2008, which is five years after he made that statement.

Don't put too much stock in the TAKS. The TAKS only tests minimum skills. Given the high passing rate at schools like Highland Park, the TAKS is a cakewalk for kids who are scoring in the 1100s and 1200s on the SAT. We really need to keep our eye on SAT scores. The SAT is a better measure because it is not possible to teach to the test and it is impossible to report inaccurate scores.

Even though all of our students do not take the SAT, SAT scores are a measure of how our brightest and most ambitious students are doing against the national competition. Theoretically, those at the bottom of the pack are striving to achieve what the most advanced students are achieving. High levels of achievement by top performers should pull up the lower acheivers.

If our highest achievers aren't scoring on average as well as the lowest achievers on the SAT nationally, we should be seriously concerned. Now is not the time for anyone to bask in flattery.

7 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

interestedcitizen Anonymous

We have yet another problem with our SAT scores. SAT scores were recentered in 1994, the effect of which was to artificially add 100 points to the SAT score. So the SAT mean score in 1992 of 867 is approximately equal to an SAT mean score of 967 today. One of the reasons for our dramatic rise in SAT scores in 1996 was that the SAT scores had been recentered, and the increase in scores didn't really represent an increase in performance on the SAT. Still,if we compare the equivent of our 1992 SAT score in 1992 with our present SAT, our SAT scores have really fallen from 967 to 809, a total of 158 points. If we don't use the recentered equivalent score it appears we only fell 64 points between 1992 and 2006. The truth is our SAT scores have fallen far more if we use the recentered equivalent of our 1992 score.

We must go a step further in determining where we are. Our mean SAT score is the score that the bottom 15% of the population taking the SAT makes.

"Best in the nation in five years?" We're not even close.

7 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )