Re: Justification for the SAT
- Subject: Re: Justification for the SAT
- From: gerald bracey <gbracey@EROLS.COM>
- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:48:35 -0400
- Reply-to: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
- Sender: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
I have never addressed the "issue" because I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about. What "issue" is there about grades?
Everyone knows that grades are flawed and most people know that the tests are flawed.
And what on earth will you now define as "educational achievement," having ruled out tests and grades?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Justification for the SAT
Methinks you need to read a bit more carefully. Sadker says in the piece from which you quote that the way grades are awarded to girls encourages them to be more conformist, that the process is one that fails girls, not that grades are biased against them. In this he is consistent with the rest of his work, such as that shown in the book he co-wrote with his wife, Failing at Fairness. It is also worth noting that he is not saying that girls don't deserve higher grades, you do, after all include the portion about the girls doing better on spelling bees than boys.
Methinks you may be setting up a straw man.
Further, a great deal of the double speak in DC comes from those in think tanks on the right, where they have predetermined agendae, to which they try to fit their "research" to "prove" their predetermined conclusions. The mission statements of such organizations make their intentions quite clear.
Similar statements and double-talk can be found in other organizations not necessarily based in Washington DC, but whose membership and boards of directors strikingly overlap with those that are. It is interesting how few of those writing on their behalf are trained in education, as if any such exposure might otherwise pollute their pure thoughts.
So let's recap the rationale. Boys don't do as well without these tests, therefore these tests should be required, even though their main claim, as a predictor of first year grades is (a) less effective the GPA in high school, and (b) girls, who score lower on the tests do better in college and university, even in the first year.
HMMM maybe we should change the topic after all. Now that's an old Washington trick - if you can win on the facts, then change the argument, or better still, attack the bringer of bad news.
Have a nice weekend. You do your polemics from your point of view, and I'll do 'em from mine.
Post a Message to arn-l: