The following paper observes the results of the annual SAT report of 2019. The report is able to illustrate the total number of test-takers, especially in relation to the critical reading portion of the assignment. The data allows for the discovery that according to both the normal curve and the percentile distribution of the total group, the average scores fell between 20 and 24 points within the reading portion of the test. Similarly, the results for the critical reading scores align with the overall average test scores with most students receiving grades within the second quartile. Privacy and consideration of marginalization experienced by participants are also vital to the legal and ethical considerations of the report.
The Results of the Annual SAT Report of 2019
The total number of test-takers in 2019 included 1,410,113 students. The number was also categorized by ethnic background, gender, first language learned by the students, and previous education of the parents. The demographics with the highest populations included being a female, white ethnicity, having English as the only first language, and parent’s having received a bachelor’s degree. The mean score for the reading tasks was between 25-29 points with most students falling in this percentile (CollegeBoard, 2019). The standard deviation of the score is high and between 15 and 40 points. This is because 0 percent of the students had gotten scores between 0 and 14. The score percentiles that received the highest number of students were between 25-29, 20-24, and 30-34 points (CollegeBoard, 2019). Of the total student scores, the first quartile includes 7 percent of the students who have scored between 1400-1600 scores. The third quartile of students who scored between 600 and 790 points included 11 percent of the entire population of test-takers. Overall, the data depicted an equal distribution of students with most scoring between 990 and 1190 points which could be considered the average score.
For reading, the first quartile score average was 22 points. The second was 26 and the third 3 points respectively. The values from the percentile for total group results depict that 33 percent of students scored between 20 and 24 points, which could be attributed to the first quartile in mean scores. The second quartile can be observed between 25 and 29 points, with 17 percent of the students being ascribed to this group. Students scoring between 30 and 36 points included 5 percent of students (CollegeBoard, 2019). For both sets of data, the reading scores are being observed. The normal curve shows slightly differing results, with the 20 to 24, or the first quartile, hosting 34 percent of the students. The second quartile, or students who had received between 25 and 29 points included 24 percent of the students. The third quartile of 30 to 36 points hosted 9 percent of students. As such, when matching the quartiles, the percentiles of total group data shows a less concentrated percentage of students when compared to the normal curve. However, due to the fact that both readings show similar density, with the first quartile being the most populated on average, it is likely that the normal curve is depicting accurate results. Similarly, the differences between the results are minimal with the highest variation being between the second quartiles of 7 percent.
Any form of data collection, especially those that are concerned with sensitive information such as grades and scores, has the necessity to be conscious of the privacy of participants. The College Board, which is the primary party that has collected, maintained and evaluated the information should have provided participants with confidentiality-related documents prior to the study as well as legal evidence that the analysis of the data would respect their privacy (Student Privacy Compass, n.d.). Additionally, the report also deals with variation among genders, individuals with diverse ethnic backgrounds, and a history of higher education in the family. As such the College Board should also take steps to present the data in a way that is considerate of potential social determinants that can contribute to the results and average scores. Similarly, in the case that issues are highlighted by the data, this would allow them to underline the possible contributors to discrepancies and inequalities that may be the results of gender, ethnicity, or other bias (Smith & Reeves, 2020). As such, the major ethical and legal considerations that the College Board should be aware of in their implementation of the study and the publication of the report include privacy and impact of participant characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, and familial background.
In conclusion, the SAT report presents an expected distribution of student participants and mean scores. Most students are able to score between 20 and 24 points within the critical reading segments, but the data suggest that the second percentile of 25 and 29 points are also heavily populated. The data recorded according to other factors of the participants such as gender, ethnicity, and educational background of family members are also vital in interpreting the average results. The available information can point to current gaps within SAT testing that may be limiting certain students. The evaluations of the provided data can allow for accurate solutions in improving mean scores as well as student performances in relation to national testing.
CollegeBoard. (2019). 2019 SAT suite of assessments annual report [Data set]. Web.
CollegeBoard. (2019). Over 2.2 million students in class of 2019 took SAT, largest group ever. Newsroom. Web.
CollegeBoard. (2019). SAT understanding scores [Data set]. Web.
Smith, E. & Reeves, R. V. (2020). SAT math scores mirror and maintain racial inequity. Brookings. Web.
Student Privacy Compass. (n.d.). State student privacy laws [Data set]. Web.