Atlanta Weather

| Traffic

Search
Get Schooled

FairTest: National Merit criteria need public airing and review

11:09 am February 8, 2010, by Maureen Downey

I admire the work done by Bob Schaeffer and FairTest as I think we need perspective on the testing frenzy that has gripped the country. He’s targeting National Merit testing and scoring now.

(By the way about testing, a bill is pending that would eliminate mandatory CRCTs in first grade here in Georgia. More on that later.)

I found this note from FairTest interesting because one of my kids ran into this issue. My oldest attended boarding school out of state on a scholarship and would have qualified for the National Merit pool in the state where the school was located but missed it by a few points because boarding schools as a group had a higher cutoff.

Until then, I had not been aware that the qualifying score varied state by state. So, for example, a 214 qualifies you for National Merit in Georgia, but you need a 221 in Massachusetts and Maryland. You only need a 201 in Wyoming and a 202 in Nevada and North Dakota.

Schaeffer is upset because the National Merit Scholarship Corporation apparently doesn’t want the cutoffs listed by state and went after a college counselor who posted them. I am not sure why National Merit objects as you can find the information with an online search. I have looked it several times in the past few years just to see where Georgia stood – we are in the middle to high range in terms of where our kids have to score.

I am with FairTest in that transparency ought to be the rule in all testing, even when the results are not pretty. (That is why Georgia DOE ought to release its math EOCT and PSAT scores.)

So, Schaeffer has posted the state cutoff scores on Fairtest. Here is the note that he sent:

NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP CORP. BULLIES SCHOOL COUNSELOR
TO REMOVE STATE-BY-STATE QUALIFYING TEST SCORES FROM WEB;
FAIRTEST RE-POST’S “CENSORED” DATA TO SHOW AWARD’S BIASES.

The National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC), which runs the country’s most prestigious tuition aid competition, is trying to block internet posting of state-by-state test score requirements for its awards. Nancy Griesemer, an independent college counselor in Northern Virginia who included the information on her website, recently received a letter from NMSC’s legal firm stating, “we strongly request you remove compilations of NMSC data.” The letter was titled “re: Unauthorized Use of National Merit Scholarship Materials.” In response, Ms. Griesemer took down the information.

“National Merit’s bullying tactics are a ham-handed attempt to hide its biased process,” said Robert Schaeffer, Public Education Director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest). ”That’s why we are posting state-by-state cut-off scores for the high school class of 2010.”

He continued, “NMSC uses state quotas to assure geographic fairness. As a result, minimum test score requirements for scholarship eligibility differ widely across the country.” For the class of 2010, state scholarship eligibility minimums range from 221 to 201 on the qualifying exam’s 60- 240 point scale.

“At the same time, however, NMSC has made no effort to address the huge income, racial and gender disparities in its awards,” Schaeffer charged. “The problems stem from NMSC’s misuse of minimum test scores to eliminate 98.5% of scholarship seekers, no matter how strong their other credentials. Under truth-in-advertising rules, the National Merit scholarships should properly be labeled ‘Your State’s Top Test-Takers Awards.’”

Over the past two decades, FairTest has led a national coalition of education reform, civil rights, and women’s organizations campaigning to overhaul NMSC’s eligibility rules. A FairTest-initiated gender bias complaint against the College Board and Educational Testing Service forced revisions in the scholarship-qualifying exam, which the companies cosponsor with NMSC. No changes, however, have been made to address other concerns about bias in the competition. “Upper-income white and Asians males still appear to receive the lion’s share of the awards,” Schaeffer said.

More recently the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) joined critics of NMSC’s process. But NACAC’s calls for reform were also rebuffed by NMSC. In the past several years, the University of California and University of Texas at Austin stopped sponsoring National Merit Scholarships.

  • Print

29 comments Add your comment

MannyT

February 8th, 2010
12:14 pm

I agree that the test data should be available for posting.

I don’t agree that the National Merit people need to change the way they award their scholarships.

If you want to give out scholarships around the country to high schoolers that have orange cats, you may do so. As long as the information is out there and available for people to see and understand, I can live with the fact that many things have a high level of subjectivity to them.

The big positive in what FarTest highlights is that these tests are given way more credit than they deserve.

This quote…NMSC uses state quotas to assure geographic fairness. As a result, minimum test score requirements for scholarship eligibility differ widely across the country. makes me think about one of my major issues with the HOPE scholarship. I think we should award HOPE to the top X% of students at each school instead of the blanket B average. It would remove one major incentive for grade inflation. It would also make sure every school, county, political district got it “fair share” of HOPE while limiting it to the best students in a school.

E

February 8th, 2010
12:18 pm

In school, we were always told the scores were a percentage, state by state, and that we wouldn’t know if we were in that group until NMSC sent out notices.
Has something changed? It seems fairly clear cut. Different scores may seem unfair, but other people would be upset if certain states dominated the awards as well, so they do have to decide on some rule or another.

In any case, they aren’t as great as they seem – many of the students only get money if they attend certain schools or fill some group or another, or get far less than if they filled one of those special blanks. The top slice of test scores get a chance – but you still have to fill some special slot or another for actual money.

Paulo977

February 8th, 2010
12:40 pm

Fair test? What is that?

B. Killebrew

February 8th, 2010
12:51 pm

Good points, Manny T.

sees the future

February 8th, 2010
12:53 pm

The NMSC actually sponsors the National Acheivement Scholarships for high scoring African American students in addition to the NMSC. The cut off scores are MUCH lower and students who receive them wouldn’t even come close to receiving the actual National Merit scholarship, which is completely race blind.

THE NMSC is open to every single student in the US who takes the PSAT regardless of race or gender, and National Merit Scholars are the top 1/2 of 1% of all PSAT scorers in each state–again, regardless of race or gender. That’s why the cut off varies–that top percent is different for every state. Were it not for state cut offs, the kids in the north east would win every award.

It just happens that very few African Americans are in the top percentage. To address this discrepancy, all own its own, NMSC creates a whole new competiton (the National Acheivement Competition), at a much less competitive level, just for African Americans (no whites or Asians allowed) and that’s not enough?

Tell us, what would be enough? What would be fair? If not the creation of a completely separate, much less competitive competition IN ADDITION to the original competition, then what? Maybe just tell the white kids and Asian kids they are not allowed to compete at all? Maybe curve the NMSC for African American kids and give them their own National Acheivement competition as well?

Where does this nonsense stop?

Wounded Warrior

February 8th, 2010
1:03 pm

suprised that GA has a required higher score for this test, than some other states. that is cool, but is not based on the competence of the school system here. We are usually on the bottom.

MannyT

February 8th, 2010
1:06 pm

There is an interesting point in the data. While on average GA consistently ranks near the bottom of average SAT scores, our top end is much higher when compared to other states. That’s even more true for DC which brings up the rear of SAT scores these days.

MannyT

February 8th, 2010
1:11 pm

@WoundedWarrior your observation would lead to statistical analysis that would highlight much more variance of scores in GA, DC, than other states that have strong state averages.

It just shows that we have a broader range of SAT scoring than most other states.

Lot’s of data here for those that are inclined to browse the stats.
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/data-tables

clueless

February 8th, 2010
1:33 pm

There are obviously some excellent students in Georgia if our minimum is set so high.

jrs

February 8th, 2010
1:40 pm

The reason that GA ranks so low on average SAT scores is that a larger number of students take the test.

When only the better students take the SAT in your state, then the average will be higher.

It is a bogus method of calculating the “rankings”.

Attentive Parent

February 8th, 2010
1:40 pm

Maureen-

Is there a breakdown of what % of Ga’s semifinalists attend private school?

If so, it would also be interesting to compare that to the % of Commended Students. Is it consistent with the breakout on semifinalists or do private schools increase their % as scores on the PSAT increase?

Dan

February 8th, 2010
1:46 pm

jrs that is a lame argument, most states have a large number maybe georgia moves from 49 to 40 on that logic, fact is even mentioning that excuse is pathetic and doesn’t address any real issues

Dan

February 8th, 2010
1:47 pm

Ga also has an extremely high dropout rate meaning many of the students who would score low are no longer even in school much less taking the test, maybe we should factor that in as well?

Emily

February 8th, 2010
1:52 pm

What we need is to make sure that everyone gets a trophy. No matter what.

it's the numbers

February 8th, 2010
1:54 pm

Dan – Many state schools outside of Ga take the ACT and only the kids trying to get into the top national schools take the SAT. That causes the average SAT for those states to be much higher. Because most of the schools in the Southeast require the SAT all of the students in GA take it which causes the average to be lower. The Law of Large Numbers and all that (if you remember your statistics from college). The top Ga schools are actually pretty good, there just aren’t that many of them.

AlreadySheared

February 8th, 2010
1:54 pm

@MannyT

” I think we should award HOPE to the top X% of students at each school instead of the blanket B average. It would remove one major incentive for grade inflation. It would also make sure every school, county, political district got it “fair share” of HOPE while limiting it to the best students in a school.”

You are completely correct. If you REALLY want to raise some hackles on this forum, suggest that the top 10%, or 5%, or 2%, or ANY % of the graduating class from each public high school in Georgia should have automatic admission to any public college in Georgia.

If you do, a legion of naysayers will arise to object that there’s NO WAY that even the top 1% of graduates from a low-achieving high school in an impoverished community should gain admission to UGA or Georgia Tech ahead of some kids from “High-standardized-test-scores-from-upper-socioeconomic-status-astronomically-high-priced-neighborhoods High School”.

Maureen Downey

February 8th, 2010
2:05 pm

AlreadySheared. I have written about theTop 10 percent rule in Texas – in which the top 10 percent of high school graduating classes are assured admission to UT – and it has not hurt that state’s flagship. Also, the recent book “Crossing the FInishing Line,” which I also blogged about here, found that top grades – even from lousy schools – were still a great predictor of college success.
Maureen

sees the future

February 8th, 2010
2:07 pm

Already Sheared:
If you do a quick little search on this kind of admission program (currently in place in states like Texas) you’ll find that they don’t result in the diverse admissions that were expected. Studies show that top students tend to move on to private universities and elite publics regardless of the admission criteria in their state’s flagship schools. African American and Latino students who were in the top 10% or so of their graduating classes are heavily recruited and have superb opportunities (admissions and scholarships) and receive little benefit from guaranteed admissions programs. And the top percent of students in every demographic have those same opportunities as well.

The big winners in guaranteed admissions programs are the next tier down in white rural schools who would otherwise not have the test scores to get in (but would have the class rank.) The big losers are suburban white kids who attend competitive highschools with great test scores and where the top 10% is crowded with kids whose GPA’s are 4.1323901 and rank is counted by ten thousandths place.

But there is almost no impact at all on diversity–those programs are already in place and chugging along great. The problem for those kids isn’t admission, its staying in to graduate and keeping up with the rest of the student body when they are poorly prepared and out of their depth.

Musicteacher

February 8th, 2010
2:12 pm

@Dan – jrs is right on the money; check out the following link from the U.S. Dept. of Education, which clearly shows Georgia with a much higher number of students taking the SAT than most other states. High school students in Georgia are pushed to take the SAT, whether or not they plan to attend college.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_134.asp

AlreadySheared

February 8th, 2010
2:14 pm

@Maureen,
Hallelujah, sister!

I for one would be very interested in seeing a table with

System Name / Total # of Graduating Seniors / # of UGA Admissions / # of Georgia Tech Admissions

Wouldn’t you?

Dan Roth

February 8th, 2010
2:15 pm

At my high school in Montgomery County, Md., had a state-by-state cutoff not been used, then I would estimate 45-50 students a year would have been Semi-Finalists…instead the majority fell into the Commended Range. The board, even in 1973-74, didn’t release the state index scores need to make Semifinalist, but the numbers eventually got out every year. We knew the rules when we took the test. There were 10 high schools in that county with maybe 50-75 kids per class that would have qualified in Wyoming or Montana, but that’s not how it worked. Would you want all the Semifinalists from the same 100 high school and prep schools each year? I wouldn’t.

Dan

February 8th, 2010
2:36 pm

No Music teacher etal Jrs is not on the money, yes it is easy to understand that if more kids take the test you are likely to have lower grades. That is a reasonable argument if you are referring to being ranked 10 vs 5 or 15 vs 10, so how far do you really think GA would climb in the rankings were all the states to do the same? maybe from 45 to 40 or 35, (and what about GA 10 ranking in dropouts wouldn’t those students drive the rate down?) it reamains a lame excuse, at least for anyone interested in addressing the issues. It is exactly that type of mentality, “if you can’t pass the test change the test” that keeps any group who wields that argument down

scrap these nasty tests

February 8th, 2010
2:36 pm

and let the grade inflation determine who gets HOPE scholarships and college admission

Here’s a great thought: pull your kids out of Lovett and simply bribe their teachers with half the money!

KMM

February 8th, 2010
3:47 pm

Taking the top X% from each school is similar to how DeKalb has selected for their Magnet program. If you score over a certain criteria, you get into a lottery and 2-3 kids from each school get to go. I recently heard they got sued for racial discrimination because it selects minority kids who are less qualified over white kids. I read that on a blog so I don’t know the accuracy…

Jennifer

February 8th, 2010
6:31 pm

Transparency is a good thing.

Echo

February 8th, 2010
6:49 pm

Dan, you still don’t get it. I am from the midwest, the only students who were taking the SAT were the Ivy school bound students. In other words the top 10% of the students. If you weren’t at the top of your class the counselors wouldn’t give you the packet and recommended that you take the ACT. In Georgia eveb the kids in SPED with IQ’s in the 60’s get to take the SAT. That tends to drive scores down quickly. It isn’t the dropouts taking the test and pushing the scores down. You need to do some research.

ScienceTeacher671

February 8th, 2010
8:30 pm

Well, call me naive. I didn’t know they spread the winners out by state. But at least we aren’t Wyoming,…

Cobb Parent

February 9th, 2010
8:35 am

Actually, just to clarify some possible misconceptions, Georgia’s cutoffs probably ranks somewhat above the average nationally. The test is only paid for during sophomore year and not junior year when the scholarships are awarded so the testing pool actually is fairly self-selective in that a sizable number who take it are aiming for the ivies or scholarships. The test costs $30-$40 (don’t remember the exact figure) so participation is probably higher among the more affluent but there are waivers that are given to those that have a demonstrated need. National Merit Semifinalist score cut-offs do vary but commended is always 200.

Personally, I think the state, if anything, should fund the test during junior year when it actually counts and then more people would have a shot at some college money. I assume they pay for it sophomore year as a diagnostic tool to identify weaknesses and predict SAT scores down the road but from a student perspective, it’s not optimal.

The lack of consistency in score cut-offs is frustrating. When my son took the PSAT, the cutoff was 214, but the prior year I think it was 217. I remember researching and found that some years it was as low as 211 or 212. To be safe, we advised our son to aim for a score higher than the cutoff score for Massachusetts (which at one point was a 224). It is a national opt-in test so I don’t have a problem with having just one cut-off score.

olivia

July 28th, 2010
4:12 pm

Fair Test, hm? I agree with JunkScience Mom on this one that the Fair Test is not really fair. I think that if you study well in school, read some books outside of school, and pick up the SATs book at the nearest library, you’ll do well. I am just concerned for the quality of our education. There has to be some type of standardized test! The schools don’t look only at the test scores when deciding whether to admit certain students or not. Read the blog post to learn more about what’s unfair in the Fair Test: http://bit.ly/d5repQ