SAT Reading and Math Scores Show Decline 4381

i just did google looking for sat historical references, i found a couple

the first item returned

... from above ...

National score data for the SAT are first available for 1952. Between then and 1963, SAT test scores held constant or even increased, despite the fact that the proportion of high-school students taking the SAT rose from 7% in 1952 to 30% in 1963, and thus that many less-qualified students were taking the test. It seems reasonable to conclude that the quality of American education held steady or even increased a bit during those years. In 1964, scores declined, and by 1970, national average scores on the verbal apbreastude portion of the SAT had fallen from 478 out of a possible 800 to 460; mathematical apbreastude scores fell from 502 to 488. When millions of people are taking the test, even a small variation in the average can be significant. By 1977, verbal scores were down to 429, math scores to 470. By 1981, scores had declined for 19 consecutive years; verbal scores had fallen a total of 54 points to 424, math scores had fallen 36 points to 466. In 1982, for the first time in two decades, scores rose; math by one point, verbal scores by two.

... snip ...

the above goes on to look at some studies correlating sat scores with other factors:

The usual statistical measure of correlation is called the "correlation coefficient". It has a value of 1 for perfect correlation, zero for no correlation at all, and -1 for perfect negative correlation. The correlation coefficient between SAT scores and first-year college grades is 0.35. This is a rather moderate correlation; it would be more useful to examine the correlation between math SAT scores and mathematics grades, and so on. The Nader Group prefers a different measure, the "percentage of perfect prediction", which is the square of the correlation coefficient; in this case 0.119, which is impressively smaller than 0.35. On this basis, Nairn and buttociates claim that the SAT scores account for only 11.9% of perfect prediction of first-year college grades and are essentially worthless.

Now, what's the correlation coefficient between social clbutt and SAT score? Here Nairn and buttociates pursue a very different course. Unlike the correlation between test scores and grades, for the link between family income and test scores they provide lengthy tables comparing test scores and average family income. There is indeed a correlation, but without the correlation coefficient, we have no way of knowing how significant the correlation is -- and there is no mention of the correlation coefficient anywhere in the discussion! There is a pbutting reference to it in a footnote in the back of the book; it is -- 0.35! The level of correlation that supposedly makes tests worthless in predicting grades suddenly becomes ironclad proof that social clbutt determines test scores!

... snip ...

the following gives sat scores from school years 66-67 thru 04-05

minor extract ... the full table gives "old scale" scores for 66-95. it gives "new scale"(?) scores for 66-05 (the old scale having been "adjusted"?) ... the following is "new scale"(?) extract:

Verbal score Mathematics score School yearTotal MaleFemaleTotal MaleFemale 1966-67 ... 543 540 545 516 535 495 2003-04 ... 508 512 504 518 537 501 2004-05 ... 508 513 505 520 538 504