In response to my Sunday column about dreadful student test scores, Phil Jankowski, now the assistant superintendent of the Armada schools, responded with a thoughtful critique. Specifically, Jankowski, named Michigan’s 2013 high school principal of the year by the MASSP, the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, challenged the entire premise that the ACT test can be used to determine whether a student is “college ready.”
Here’s what he had to say:
 |
| Jankowski |
I read your column about the test scores and I think part of the discussion is missing. I do not know if you are aware of how the ‘college ready’ score is calculated and how it might very well be a flawed indicator. I am very much a supporter of the ACT tests, and in Armada we have done much to promote improved college readiness. However, I think it is important that the public gets a better understanding of how flawed the college readiness indicator is. It is frustrating when people take a number at face value without questioning the validity and the accuracy of the calculations behind the number.
The state tracks data on college readiness in two ways. The ACT test, which is a predictive indicator, and then tracks students as they enroll in college until graduation, which is an actual indicator. Because there is a lag of almost 2 years in the college data most people go by the ACT predictor and that is what gets the headlines, as in your column. However, the reality is vastly different.
For example, using our data in Armada, in the most recent year (2012) we can compare the two indicators directly, we were deemed to have 11% of our students college ready on the ACT test. When one examines the actual data of students attending college 68% of our students went to college and of those almost none needed remedial courses. Therefore, over six times the number of students that were deemed “college ready” went on to college and needed no remedial classes. Considering many of those students went into engineering and medical fields, this shows how flawed the indicator could be.
Similarly, in East Detroit, which you cited as one of the worst performers in your column, in 2012, only 5% were deemed college ready, yet 36% went on to college and again, almost none needed remedial classes. Again, over seven times the number of students deemed “college ready” were able to go on to college and be successful without need for remedial classes.
This trend exists for every school in the state of Michigan and begs the question as to why the college readiness indicator is so far off from reality and why the state continues to use it as an indicator. …. No typical school really can ever really achieve more than 25% college readiness.
Phil Jankowski
Assistant Superintendent
Armada Area Schools
Thank you for looking into this more deeply. I imagine that we all want all of our children to be college and career ready, but who gets to define that? In this case, ACT has, and we are all now tied to their definition. As Mr. Jankowski notes, this predictor of readiness turns out to be way off the mark in reality. A suspicious mind must wonder, faced with such an obviously invalid measurement: who stands to gain?
Clearly, ACT does, as every high school junior in Michigan now takes the test. Many districts also pay for its predecessors, EXPLORE and PLAN, so as to track how prepared their students are for the ACT itself. That suite of testing brings in plenty of cash. (And, as long as the legislature cannot get its act together on our state testing program, districts need this internally consistent set of assessments for their own guidance.)
But who else gains from a standard that will inevitably proclaim the majority of our high school grads "unready"? Why, everyone invested in the false narrative that our traditional public schools are failing, of course. If they are failing, we can continue to defund them, thus ensuring that they really will fail. We can continue to push allegedly better alternatives, such as vouchers, charters, and — especially — the cyber schools that are now funded at per-student rates exceeding hundreds of traditional districts, despite their much lower level of services and support. There is a fortune to be made!
Back to the meat of this CCR standard, though, note that it requires scores predictive of earning a "B" in a college course in EVERY area tested: English, reading, math, and science. Not hitting the benchmark in just one area means a student is "not ready" — despite the fact that almost no college major or career field requires one to be equally proficient in everything.
If you want more detail, visit ACT.org and download "The Condition of College and Career Readiness 2013," or read my interpretation at http://ed-matters.blogspot.com/2013_01_01_archive.html.