Those Who Can

E. Why Not Test Prep?

June 5, 2007

by Cal Lanier

What results can be expected when low income, underrepresented minority students take a test prep course? As a test prep instructor, I've only worked with groups of low income, minority students on five different occasions over four years. As I noticed unusual result patterns, I went googling for other experiences or research on teaching test prep to low income and/or minority students. To my astonishment, I found very little information--even if I were ambitious enough to pay for JSTOR. Two of the few online sources I've been able to track down were from Admission Possible and a 1995 study by Gary Moss. What studies I did find reported surprisingly low improvement compared to my (admittedly limited) experience.

With all the data documenting the substantial SAT/ACT performance gap between whites and Asians vs. Hispanics and African Americans, I have long wondered why more people haven’t advocated a systemic attempt to improve college admissions test scores. Why do educational pundits like Jay Mathews push Advanced Placement tests as a means for low achieving schools to improve, but never suggest that schools try to improve their students’ college admissions scores through relatively inexpensive assistance? After all, the SAT and ACT are considerably more egalitarian than the specialized, high-intensity, expensive, and low transparency AP tests. Students with more ambition than money or opportunity can demonstrate their achievement even if they’re stuck with bad teachers in lousy schools, for the relatively inexpensive cost of a test prep course. Yet I know of no one who has proposed a systematic attempt to bring test prep to low income or minority students in order to see what impact this would have on the performance gap.

I've concluded that the interest deficit is caused by two opposing political realities in the college admissions test arena. First, there's an ongoing expert debate about the effectiveness of test prep. Any suggestion that tax dollars or charitable organizations provide test prep for low income students would almost certainly bring up the efficacy argument. Odd, really, given that states pay millions each year in Advanced Placement test fees, never wondering if the appalling low income and minority failure rate suggests a lack of effectiveness.

Furthermore, the college admissions machine expends a huge amount of energy discounting the value of college admissions tests. Directors of admissions, college presidents, minority educational advocates, education policy experts, politicians, teachers--every major player scoffs at test scores, declaring them nothing more than a necessary evil. One gets the impression that if the world worked properly, colleges wouldn't need the multiple choice menace because they could evaluate every student from heartfelt teacher recommendations, evocative personal essays, and that intangible spirit that directors of admissions look for in an interview that lets them know instantly which students will be a "perfect fit".

Until that glorious day, everyone involved will condemn the performance disparity, blame it all on test prep courses that "only the rich" can purchase, and encourage colleges to sift through applications like miners looking for the diversity-laden student whose test scores just don't tell the whole story. (All students lacking diversity will, of course, tell their story entirely through the despised test. ) In this world view, any serious evaluation of test prep for low income minorities is the functional equivalent of letting the terrorists win.

But all of this debate occurs at the top tier of educational policy. In the trenches, parents pay cheerfully (well, at least readily) for test prep, knowing it usually works. Likewise, I imagine that those who work with and care about low income, minority students are interested in knowing whether test prep would raise their students' scores.

I resolved that the next time I taught a course to low income students, I would track their progress throughout the course and in the actual test, while collecting as much information as possible about the students' abilities and educational level. In February 2007, I finally had the opportunity.