One of my last blogs was about declining SAT scores. As I am an avid reader I stumbled on a little history that motivated me to revisit the topic of the SAT. Diane Ravitch, who is my education writing idol, wrote in her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, that back in 1975 on its front page, the New York Times reported that SAT scores had fallen steadily for over a decade. Talk about ahistorical! The story goes on to report that a commission was appointed in 1977 to examine the causes of the decline in the test scores. The commission concluded that the increased numbers of minority students taking the SAT were one reason for the decline. They site that minority students on average score lower on the SAT than traditional test takers (white counterparts). But eyebrows are raised when traditional test takers scores are lower, and they were. The commission goes on to explain that while the composition of test takers changed, the decline could also be attributed to learning erosion caused by increased television viewing, higher divorce rate and political upheaval. Also, the emphasis on humanities, considered non-academic, de-emphasized critical and computational thinking. Other research discovered that enrollment in math, science, and foreign language had fallen as well.What followed was the notorious, “A Nation at Risk”, a report heralded by the Reagan administration in 1983. The name alone congers fear. If you listen while reading the title there is a crescendo of villainous music. That report detailed pending doom and decried a “crisis in education”. It conveys the unimaginable, the United States was being surpassed by other nations in academic attainment. When the press got a hold to this knowledge about the state of education, our nations students were all but condemned to dumbness. While the report outlined many things wrong with education it was used as tool to justify agendas that exceeded any recommendations the report could provide. Using A Nation at Risk there were pushes for the shut down of the U.S. Department of Education, initiating a business approach to education, school closures, state takeover of districts, elimination of humanities courses, and punitive approaches to school accountability. Most ironically, testing was hardly mentioned.  

Is this Déjà vu? This same debate is still raging. Nothing, in now 40 years, has changed. The same things are said, with the same amelioration being made. If the same approach didn’t improve education 40 years ago, why would they work now, particularly on the same issues? There is a idiom that goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I believe that many are in the midst of some sort of hysteria when it comes to education. But, there is a vested effort to keep the masses this way. Gloom and doom are probably the best way to move an agenda forward. A Nation at Risk spawned education legislation that has been championed since the Reagan administration that are predicated on fear. We’ve seen No Child Left Behind, Race to The Top, and now Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) – I’ll talk about ESSA in another blog. These legal mandates are directed to get those test scores higher by directing the locus of education. The test are simply the means to measure the effectiveness of not content and teaching, but agendas.

Confused? So was I until I stopped looking at the initiatives and began looking at the business of education. Education is a $169 billion dollar a year enterprise. That is big money. And, I am only referring to K through 12 education. College is an whole other chunk of major change. With so much money involved, who stands to gain the most from this conglomerate is not the students, but big business. The education market sounds like a broken record because those old arguments are very successful. It makes no sense to change a profitable business model. On average student spending only accounts for 16 % of that $169 billion budget, the lion’s share goes to student data software developers, test companies, publishers, and consultants. These entities get more money out of the education accounts than the actual students. They do this by talking the numbers in favor of their enterprise. Here’s what I mean: to sell a service, I tell you the numbers are terrible, test scores are at an all time low. I evoke more fear of the negative effects of minorities, bad teachers, and resources that are taken a way from talented students. Then I say, you need my services/help to turn these numbers around as indicated by the student data management software I just sold you. You need my test to measure student success and the more students who take the test the better measurement of student capabilities. Your students need to be prepared to take the test. My textbooks, curriculum, and education products will get your students ready for the test. I tell you public schools are mismanaging the money, send your child to corporate funded public-charter schools that have more spending per-student ratios, smaller classrooms, and are managed by businesses who know how to effectively manage to maximize efficiency and get results. And, that’s how they make money hand over fists.

These entities see the profit in the fear of low test scores to the tune of tens of billions. With those kind of numbers, we all need to rethink our career choices. The money is in education. The financial sector is numbers oriented. They value investments based on statistics. It is well known, but rarely talked about, that the education reform movement has been financed and steered by corporate interest. Big business foundations, such as Gates (Microsoft), Walton (Walmart), Zucherberg, and Broad (Sun Life) have poured billions into charter school start-ups, sympathetic academics and scholars, media campaigns (including Hollywood movies) and power brokering the careers of privatization promoters who dominate the education policy debate from local school boards to the U.S. Department of Education. In recent years, hedge fund operators, venture capitalists and investment bankers have jumped onto the education reform bandwagon. These folks finance charter schools, sit on school boards, and are members of associations and management companies that vow to fix education. These same entities own the test, textbooks, technology and education consulting firms that claim to have the tools to rescue education.

Take Pearson, for example. This British publishing giant moved into the U.S. education business in 2000. They bought a U.S.education company for $2.5 Billion. Chump change when you consider that they have turned that investment into a $69 billion profit. They managed to do this by wielding an enormous influence over American education. Pearson writes the textbooks and tests that drive instruction in public schools across the nation. The company’s software grades student essays, tracks student behavior and diagnoses — and treats — attention deficit disorder. The company administers teacher licensing exams and coaches teachers once they’re in the classroom. It advises principals, the administration and parents for that matter. It operates a network of three dozen online public schools, and, co-owns the for-profit company that now administers the GED. Pearson brags that it is the largest custodian of student data anywhere – meaning they sell the registration software that tracks students and their lifecycle in schools. Amazing since I am only talking about its K-12 business.

In addition, public contracts and public subsidies — including at least $98.5 million in tax credits from six states — have flowed to Pearson in spite of the company inability to demonstrate that its products and services are actually producing academic gains. The state of Virginia recertified Pearson as an approved “school turnaround” consultant in 2013 even though the company could not directly prove that their results, particularly when those results, at best, were mixed. Only one of the five Virginia schools that Pearson cited as references improved both its math and reading proficiency rates against the state averages. Two schools lost ground in both math and reading and the other two had mixed results. Regardless, Philadelphia’s State officials said Pearson met all the criteria they required of consultants. Meanwhile on the pacific coast, Pearson sold the Los Angeles Unified School District an online curriculum that it described as revolutionary — but that had not yet been completed, nor tested in a large district, before the LAUSD agreed to spend an estimated $135 million on it. Sadly, this purchase was made in spite of teacher’s disliking the Pearson lessons and rarely use them, as discovered from an independent evaluation.

My favorite aunt, who is no longer living, talked about this type of fear mongering for profit. She called it the “Okey Doke”. The Okey Doke is the equivalent to the snake oil salesmen, selling the cure for a made up ailment. Education is not sick with the illnesses the education companies claims it has. Can it be improved? The answer to that question is, always. Our world changes every day and students need to be able to respond to this change. Education can prepare students for the unexpected and the unimaginable. But as parents, educators, and students we need to scream, “enough with these test”, stop scapegoating minorities, schools, and teachers and insist on qualitative methods of conveying student achievement and stop big business from filling their bank accounts at the expense of our children.

Mills College has been looking at strategies to increase enrollment. For the last three years enrollment has steadily declined for incoming freshmen and returning students at a rate hovering around 71 percent. We can point fingers as to why this is occurring, the limited course offerings; the lack of diversity of instructors; inflation; low endowment funding; and any number of other reasons I haven’t uncovered. The reality is that Mills College needs more students. To address the lagging enrollment numbers the college has determined that the admissions standards should be lowered. Prior to this change in the admissions policy the baseline grade point average was 3.64. Now the baseline GPA was lowered to 2.68. In addition, both the SAT and ACT have been deemed optional for potential applicants. The reasoning here is that these measures were taken to encourage increased minority enrollment, particularly among Oakland’s High School students. The out going Mills College President, Alecia DeCoudreaux is quoted on the Mills College website as saying, “[w]hile mills Mills is doing a good job enrolling students of color(51 percent of the undergraduate student body in fall 2015), we believe we can do better. By making standardized test scores optional, and by creating a pathway to college for our hometown high school graduates, we hope to further this proud legacy by making access to higher education more attainable.”

Am I the only one that who thinks that there is something fundamentally wrong with this? Mills College was founded in 1852 as an institution with high academic standards. These standards were to support the level of academic rigor and the quality of students the college wished to attract. For more than one hundred and sixty years, Mills College has held on to that standard. Under the guise of “student diversity”, the college lowers its standards. As a minority student what most prohibits my college attendance is not admissions standards, but cost. The cost of a college education is exorbitant. College tuition has gone up an average of 10 percent every year; out pacing inflation. In addition, financial aid and student loans have gone down. Since both Libby Schaaf and the Oakland Unified School District superintendent Antwan Wilson collaborated on this decision those two should know oh to well that over 67 percent of Oakland students are eligible for either free or reduced lunches. This means money is the issue more so than academics.

A connivance, such as the one heralded by DeCourdeux, Schaaf, and Wilson is deplorable. The mayor of Oakland believes the rhetoric that minority students are some how less capable than their white counterparts. Wilson, the newly installed OUSD superintendent, gets a feather in his hat if more minority students are admitted to college under his watch so he doesn’t have to concentrate on the quality of instruction in OUSD. Lower standards are a quicker fix to college enrollment, than improving the quality of instruction, particularly when the district has just gone through a massive hire of new teachers who have little to no classroom experience. DeCourdeux can also leave Mills College with the parting “gift” of higher enrollment. With this model, it is all self-serving.

A better model would be to keep the standards and prepare students to meet those standards. Right now we live in a world where achievement is highly valued. Devaluing academics devalues all the students who came before the standards were lowered. Now they are no longer a part of the academic elite. If Mills were thinking prudently about increasing admissions, it would have been a better move to lower the cost of tuition. That would have actually addressed the real reason minority enrollment is low. Also the way scholarships are awarded can’t continue. Mills has a business school. Certainly it could have come up with the right formula that could both project increased enrollment and increased revenue for Mills College. This move in business terminology is called “returns to scale”. Just imagine if Mills College would have made the move to lower tuition.  It would have made national news garnering national attention to attract national students who would pay out-of-state tuition. In addition, local students could take pride in attending a local college they can afford and gives them that extra academic edge in a competitive job market. This could have been the boost Mills needs to stay viable.

SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores are the lowest they have ever been in 10 years. The test scores have steadily declined since its overhaul in 2005.  Data from the College Board, who administers the SAT, reports that the average score for the Class of 2015 was 1490 out of a maximum of 2400.  This average score indicates that the scores have dropped approximately 7 points from the previous class’ score, demarking the lowest of all scores in the last 10 years.  The test has three sections, critical reading, math and writing and there was a decline of at least 2 points in each section.  In spite of gains in-school federal test results that showed gains in reading and math comprehension at the elementary school level, this increase did not translate into higher SAT scores.

Preliminary speculation about the cause for the drop in scores was attributed to the number of students who now take the SAT.  The number of students taking the test has increased, particularly among foreign/overseas test takers.  In addition, educators were pointing to high poverty, language barriers, low levels of parental education and the environment of urban neighborhoods as the cause for lower scores.  Cyndi Schmieser, the chief of assessment for the College Board, said that the number of students prepared for college, based on the SAT scores, has remained stagnant.  Approximately 42% of the students who took the SAT scored 1550, which is a benchmark score for college admissions and college preparedness.  Schmieser, defends the quality of the test and believes that the SAT is an accurate measure of determining whether a student is college ready.

The state of Texas saw a bad year for SAT scores.  The state’s SAT scores dropped to the lowest levels in more than two decades.  The 2015 class scores dropped 9 points in the math section, with the average score of 486 out of a possible maximum score of 800 in math.  The reading scores were an average 470 down 6 points from the previous year; the worst ever score for the state.  Lastly, writing was down 7 points from last year’s with an average score of 454.  The Dallas Morning News reported that, “there have been very few years in recent history where Texas scores have dropped so dramatically from the previous years across all three subject areas”.   Texas attributes the decline in test scores to the increase of minority test takers, citing that minority students generally perform worse than white students on standardized test such as the SAT.  Their logic is that with more minority test takers test scores decline.   However, bias assumptions about race and test performance don’t necessarily add up.

Conversely, California students outperformed Texans substantially in spite of having similar demographics.  The results showed that California students scored 20 points higher on math and 25 points higher in reading.  Comparatively the demographics of California is 53.6% Latina/o, 24.6% white, with Texas being 51.8% Latina/o and 29.5% white. And, California had a higher percentage of low-income test takers at 42.1%, compared to 30.4% in Texas.

Speculation on the causes of why the SAT scores are declining largely shows that when it comes to aptitude and achievement, minority students are considered the default reason for the cause of the decline.  On the surface the score fluctuation in miniscule, however the rhetoric to discuss these fluctuations loudly trumpets minority intellectual inferiority.  Texas, in this case, will not flatly call it intellectual inferiority.   The educators point to the large number of low-income test takers who are black and brown.  Being low income in the state of Texas correlates to low achievement historically.  While this may be the case, it behooves Texas to view the increase in test takers as the result of successful efforts to encourage more students to seek college education.  Texas is predicated on the negative effects of minority populations.  If educators where focusing on providing the same quality of education for all students, particularly low income, then there would be no reason to blame minority students for lower test scores.

It seems apropos that Texas, in the afterglow of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was governed by George Bush who championed the Act.  The former governor and President saw an emphasis on accountability and data as a way to hold schools responsible for making all students college ready; in essence poor performance, poorer school.  To Bush’s own admission, “schools leave poor students behind because educators have low expectations and lack the motivation for teaching all students well.” Listening to Texas’ excuse for low text scores, perhaps Bush was right.  History revealed that one of the fundamental problems with NCLB was that the resources were not allocated to effectively reduce the education gap, and that student achievement is measured with test. NCLB, Rise To The Top, and I would argue, Common Core Standards, and President Obama’s new Every Student Succeeds Act,  have all placed the focus of instruction on math and reading.  Teachers are left to lean on curriculum that speaks to test and not critical thinking or problem solving, causing other subjects and enriched learning to take the back seat.

But looking at the SAT itself may be the real reason for the decline.  It has been proven that there are apparent racial patterns in SAT scores. Black students on average are 99 points behind the average score of white students. Overhaul or not, the SAT test makers have yet to design a text without these bias. Other standardize test have similar breakdowns. Those who defend the test say that the gaps reflect the inequities in American society – black students are less likely than white students to attend well-financed, quality-staffed elementary and secondary schools, and that’s why their scores trail.  In other words, the College Board says that American society is unfair, not the SAT. They argue that the test is fair and therefore a valid tool for illustrating college readiness.  Opponents of the SAT may question the fairness of using a test on which wealthier students consistently score better than lower income students, but further research to isolate race as a factor on the fairness of individual SAT questions have fallen off.

What is being investigated now is student cognition.  Brain researchers are saying that students don’t process information the same way.  In a study  conducted by MIT neuroscientists working with education researchers at Harvard University and Brown University found that tests, such as the SAT, are designed to measure the knowledge and skills that students have acquired in school — what psychologists call “crystallized intelligence.” However, students are increasingly relying on “fluid intelligence” — the ability to analyze abstract problems and think.  Teachers who focus on developing “crystallized intelligence” do not consequently develop  “fluid Intelligence”; the two are not codependent. As students “fluid intelligence” goes up, “crystallized intelligence” goes down.  Said differently, the SAT is measuring old methods of comprehension. Schmeiser believes that educators need to try different methods of teaching.  “Simply doing the same things we have been doing is not going to improve these numbers,” says Schmeiser.

These high-stakes tests are used to predict a student’s future educational attainment and adult employment and income. Depending so heavily on them may unintentionally be redirecting a student’s aspirations. In addition, preparing students to take test is not making them any smarter. Test teaching leaves little room for teachers to be creative in the classroom and engage students in different ways – ways that could be mind expanding.   This may be the real reason for the lower test SAT scores, students aren’t taught to think.

The neighborhood is changing. Unfamiliar people are walking dogs and pushing strollers, as if in the suburbs. Houses once dilapidated are refurbished and unrecognizably pretty. Coffee shops materialize and restaurants with gourmet menus are crowded with patrons who have unfamiliar faces, yet live within walking distance of the establishment. I want to think that all this revitalization is good, but I am becoming increasingly nervous. Those familiar and once comforting faces are disappearing. Ned who held up the corner, with his paper bag wrapped beer can has taken up somewhere else; he’d been a landmark feature on that corner for more than 20 years. Miss Maybelle passed away, she was 87. Her children sold the house; they couldn’t walk away from that money. The friendly neighbors who where more like family and could be trusted to watch the house and pick up the mail when away, moved more than 40 miles from the city; they felt the move was for the better.

What’s creating this unease? Some groups call this gentrification with a small “g”, connoting how the older houses have charm and are much closure to work. The small “g” people see the infusion of dollars into dying neighborhoods. These new residents are reinvigorating abandoned and forgotten locales. Then there are others who call this gentrification with a big “G”. They are alarmed by what appears to be displacement and disparagement of Black and Brown people; throw in some low-income folks of any color, and don’t forget Pacific Islanders and American Indians, and the diversity that once peppered Oakland and other Bay Area neighborhoods is all but a fable. Housing prices are going through the roof. The cost to rent has nearly doubled and continues to be rising.

I haven’t quite determined, whether I see things from a small “g” or a big “G” perspective. But I may have cause for concern. From a cursory glance I could be characterized as and a small “g” person. I am a professional with post graduate education. I attended good colleges and can command a livable wage. However, I do have a few things that work against me. I am a black woman, charting a coveted career, and recovering from a serious financial set-back caused by illness. I can’t afford my childhood home, which is in a neighborhood where the average home value is over $700,000. I can only rent and every year my landlord has gone up on the rent. I am hoping she doesn’t find some way to maneuver me out from my residence with hopes of getting more money. My unit could possible rent for $2,600, almost 50% more than what I am currently paying.

I grew up in the neighborhood I live in. I have lived there since I was 5 years old. My parent’s home was in the “district”; the “district” being the Monclair school district, known for its pricey homes and upper middle income families. From perspective my neighborhood was always gentrified. It is within this district that I was able to get a decent education and go onto more than decent universities. But I also lived in not so decent neighborhoods where quiet constitutes train horns, shouting, gun shots, and side shows. Not that I am feeling nostalgic about those urban sounds, but I am feeling that the method of addressing those sounds are by getting rid of the people – people of color – who are making the “noise”. No matter how it looks on paper the re-invigoration doesn’t mean that there will be opportunity for those who are in the greatest need of invigoration.

What gentrification means for schools again relies on how you view gentrification. Gentrification with a small “g” means that neighborhood schools can gain with new tax monies pouring into the school budget. More money means that schools can attract “better” teachers, have more technology and innovative teaching mechanisms. Also with a new demographic of students, test performance increases and urban schools now become an attractive option as excellence begets excellence. Neighborhoods become safer for children as the new residents supplement police protection with private security companies.

Conversely those who see gentrification with a big “G” see something very sinister. Schools located on prime real estate are ear marked for closure to make way for luxury housing. The quality of education is declining for black and brown children who are funneled into special education and sub-standard classes. This yields absolute abysmal outcomes of only 32 percent of African-American and 28 percent of Latino third-graders reading at grade level. Less than half of the same demographic of high school students pass courses they need to apply to a state university. Teachers who can no longer afford the high cost of living are switching careers; or, teachers no longer live in the city they teach in and this affects any color. Contrary to expectations, the new residents are either opting out of their neighborhood school by sending their children to charter or private school. Neighborhood schools stand to lose thousands of dollars, risk closure and quality teachers. Money slated for struggling urban schools are redirected to specialized small schools to attract the new middle income residents.

See the quandary? Small “g” has a point, but big “G” has a point too. How do we curb the tide of resentment flung toward small “g” people and how do we work with big “G” people to end the displacement and disenfranchisement? We can look at history and see that these neighborhoods moved from people of color – indigenous and Mexican, to white and Jewish American, to African American, to Asian and Latino, and now back to white and Jewish American. Given this history I can only assume that if history repeats itself, and it will, the neighborhood compositions will shift again.

When I examine issues, I don’t like to leave them just sitting there with no possible reconciliation. I believe in throwing out solutions, and eventually the discussion will move toward a resolution that can be mutually beneficial. In that spirit, I think that with the infusion of more tax dollars and more new companies there can be investment in education and development programs to prepare historically marginalized groups for better employment opportunities. Create initiatives that set aside positions for long time residents of the city – particularly black and brown people. Although this may appear as affirmative action, this can help ameliorate disenfranchisement. Continue to mandate affordable units for new housing development. And, insist that all constituents are at the table to work on equitable solutions. Whether a small “g” or big “G”, this is a start.

For so many immigrant students, who are in the public school system, they are left to limp along in schools that are still coming up to speed with funding and qualified staffing. Immigrant students who speak a language other than English at home are one of the fastest growing populations in the United States. According the U.S. Department of Education, there were 4.7 million students classified as English Language Learners. These student face enormous challenges. They find themselves at a disadvantage in the classroom and often lack the resources to compensate for the deficit. Many school districts claim that it is difficult to find enough teachers who are qualified to teach and that many programs, which offer assistance with educating ESL students are inconsistent. English learner students are more likely to be in low income households, with parents who also lack proficient language skills. Now couple that with over-crowed schools in cash strapped school districts, such as the ones that exist in the Bay Area, and these students have little to no chance of receiving education that allows them to be viable and self-sufficient.

While there are programs that exist to help these students, in San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, an English learner designation keeps them out of mainstream classrooms. They have modified instruction that doesn’t match their English only counterparts; and the problem, the longer they stay in special language programs, the further they fall behind in other subjects. It is estimated that English learners graduation rate is lower than 60% nation wide. Even more alarming, the majority of these students are born in the United States. Despite assumptions that these students are foreign born, native-born U.S. citizens predominate the English learner students. 56% of English learner high school students were born right here in the United States. And, more than half are 2nd or 3rd generation U. S. citizens.

A new English learner student’s admittance into public schools usually starts with a home survey, which ask, “What is the primary language spoken at home?  And, “Which language does the student speak more frequently?” If they are found to be English deficient they are assigned the label of English Learner Student. Because English learner students have a designation, they are segregated in school. This segregation is also reflected in the neighborhoods that they live in. Schools claim that this is necessary to provide students with qualified teachers and bilingual programs that are scarce. But what also happens is that students get shackled with ELS/ESL designation and are not brought up to proficiency. According to Californians Together, in California, 59 % of secondary school English learners were found to be in school for more than 6 years without reaching English proficiency. The group also found that students received minimal or no help with developing their language skills.

The academic performance of English learner students falls way below their English only classmates. English learner students are plagued with high dropout and low graduation rates. Teachers who have these students are often ill-equipped to meet the challenges these students present. They often lack skills, resources and strategies needed to teach, effectively evaluate and nurture English learner students. In addition, teachers administer standardized test to ELS students without assuring that they have reached English proficiency. These factors only compound the ELS dilemmas.

In the 2012 -2013 school year, 26 % of Students in San Francisco public schools were English learners, and that figure was 2nd highest after Oakland. While the San Francisco School district received high marks for its language-immersion efforts that began nearly four decades ago with Chinese immigrants, the district began lagging with changing immigrant populations. Since 2008 in an attempt to address the shifting population, the city has implemented pathways to success for immigrant students. 12 schools in the San Francisco Unified School District now offer newcomer pathway programs for student with English language needs.

But high school students don’t necessarily benefit from these programs, because of budget constraints and cutbacks, which are critical to language-immersion education. Although San Francisco has the highest graduation rates in California, English learner rates are just 63 %. Graduation rates should be high across the board.

The way English learning systems are administered should be changed. In a country whose immigrant population is more than 50%, and some would argue 90%, we need to stop setting up English learner students for failure.

They need mandates that support their academic achievement and hold states and school districts accountable to increasing graduation rates that include all these things and more:

• Extend the time needed to be proficient in English from 1 to 3 years before being tested for common core standards.
• Improve the quality of assessment and support.
• Ensure that a full range of services are available to bring English learner students up to speed at no cost.
• Improve teacher training to meet the need of students effectively.
• Reach out to parents and involve them actively in the student’s language development.

These actions are essential to meeting the needs of these vital students.