Do promotion policies matter when exams are easier?
 |
Though the city released the results of the ELA and math state exams this spring, the debate over the value of these standardized tests reignited this month. The latest argument on the table? The Daily News reported yesterday that, even with Bloomberg ‘raising the bar’ with his proposed promotion policy, 6th-graders can score high enough on the state English test to move onto the next grade simply by guessing.
In fact, says the News, the number of 6th-graders who scored at the bottom, Level 1 dropped from 10% in 2006, when twice as many points were required to pass, to 0.2% this year. And, according to the News, it’s not just lower standards on the reading test; a June article reported that Jennifer Jennings, a sociology doctoral student at Columbia University, found the state math exams are easier, too.
According to Jennings, since the state “revamped” the exam in 2006, only a small portion of what students learn each year is actually being tested, and much of what appears on the exam should have been learned in earlier grades. Additionally, she discovered that nearly identical questions appear each year. (GothamSchools provides a revealing look at specific questions Jennings examined.)
State Board of Regents Commissioner Meryl Tisch has called for New York’s high stakes exams to be “more defensible,” and according to GothamSchools, the state Department of Education is looking into using an “audit mechanism” to guard against score inflation, which happens when a rise in test scores do not reflect an increase in actual learning, but rather another factor, such as the predictability of questions on the exam.
What do you think? Do your child’s test scores accurately reflect his knowledge of math and reading?
Subscribe to 
I am so happy you are covering this. I was absolutely astonished when I looked at the sample tests on NYS DOE’s website a few years ago, because the questions seemed so far below grade level.
The exam questions are laughably low-level, without enough of a ceiling to allow good or excellent students to distinguish themselves. One foolish wrong answer can cause a drop to a low 4. If there were additional tough questions, one bad answer wouldn’t have this effect.
Instead, because of the low ceiling, teachers are panicked and realize kids have to just nail the test to keep their same number of test points from the year before, to show that they’ve made progress.
As a result, there is now such pressure to teach to the test that the schools spend endless amounts of time going over the limited types of questions that are on the test, usually 1-2 grade levels below what you would -think- kids should be learning for the grade. Guess what? The tests went down 1-2 grade levels in difficulty and classroom curriculum dropped, too.
I previously thought the state tests were only useful for assessing “proficiency” and not appropriate for use for middle school admissions, program entry, etc. Now that the odds are that kids can get a passing score by guessing, I know they aren’t even good for measuring proficiency.
The tests must be changed to provide a variety of questions with more room (and statistical validity) at the top, and to ensure that a passing score really means proficiency. Tougher, more varied questions would lead to a tougher, more varied curriculum. Imagine a test that reflected a full, well-developed curriculum, challenging to learners on many levels, instead of what we have now–a curriculum that reflects a low-level, poorly designed test.
Comment by bkmom — August 13, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
These tests do not accurately measure math skills, but rather the amount of time spent on test prep. My fourth grader, who still adds and subtracts by counting on her fingers (and often still gets the wrong answer) still got a Level 3.
Comment by joe — August 14, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
These tests measure how well prepped a child was for a test. I’m a special educator and I also have a son with mild disabilities who is 2 years behind in math. He’s in a team teaching class and receives math tutoring after school. He is just now working on math problems that are part of the second grade standards, and he is going into the 4th grade!!! And guess what?? He scored a Level 3 on the 3rd grade math test. Everyone was so happy for him, but I am furious! He can barely subtract, and he is going into 4th grade. That is not meeting standards — that is good test prep. Needless to say, he is going to continue with math tutoring! Scoring well on a test is not the same as learning the curriculum and being able to demonstrate the necessary skills. I’m just worried that we are going to start decertifying kids with disabilities because they score well on these tests. That doesn’t mean they have mastered the skills!
Comment by Anonymous — August 14, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
As a special education teacher in Bushwick, I witnessed first-hand the effects these high stakes tests have taken on education.
The students I taught had 800 minutes of ELA and Math instruction per week, and only 40 minutes of physical education. Lesson plans and curriculum were judged on only one criteria: What were they doing to raise our students state test scores? The state tests dominate the school year; review for the ELA test begins in November and segues into review for the Math test in March. A full five months of the school year is spent wholly concentrated on the state exams.
Urban districts where Leadership Academy principals dominate are especially vulnerable to the vicissitudes of testing because funding and personnel decisions are made almost exclusively on State Test scores. This forces a Principal to focus efforts on raising test scores. The most reliable way of ensuring success on the state exams is teaching the exam. It’s hard to really enthuse children about the sanitized passages of the ELA exams or the sparsity of a Math multiple-choice question.
Finally, the Bloomberg administration compares the test scores of students year to year. That state scores have risen proves only the the class of 2009 was better than the class of 2008 at the test. Or are we to believe that each year of students have gotten smarter and smarter?
I’m glad to see that inside schools is helping to expose the Bloomberg/Klein “success” story as nothing but hollow statistics.
Comment by Alex Tronolone — August 15, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Glad to see you covering this. The tests seemed ridiculously easy this year–especially the math–and I was alarmed by the time our child’s school devoted to test prep. Has the percentage of children scoring at Level 4 changed over the past few years? Obviously the number scoring at Level 3 has increased enormously, but are the 4s a consistent percentage, or has that gone up? Or down, for that matter?
It almost seems that this is the white elephant in the room: the politicians want to talk about how many more kids are scoring at grade level (conveniently leaving out the part about where the tests are easier), but nobody wants to talk about whether more kids are scoring at level 4, and whether that means something. The difference in the percentage of kids scoring at 4 in the affluent and non-affluent schools and districts is something that would embarrass the politicians, as well as their buddies who run the charter schools.
Comment by district 13 parent — August 15, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
What score do you need to pass the high school regent. To me this is a test that need to be eliminated. Test period need to be eliminated. Because all children are not test takers just like all adult are not. If a child take the regent a couple of times and unable to pass the regent exam, that should let teachers know he or she is not a test taker it they should not be held accountable for not passing. A test does not determine whether a student should move on or not.
Comment by Annie — August 18, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
would love to hear people’s comments on the Global History Regents exam! I believe exam should be eliminate or only optional — but it certainly should not be required for graduation! why is history the only subject that students are required to pass 2 regents exams — the teacher can’t test important social studies skills when they are constanly obsessed with test prep! social studies assessments should skill based not memory based!
Comment by Alison — August 18, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Great article. It’s a disgrace to see this type of manipulation. Bloomberg, a Svengali type with a straight face, boasts that he has gotten rid of social promotion. Of course he has, but in order to do so has radically dumbed down the entire system.
Further, as a high school teacher, I see this same philosophy trickling up (this is not possible for liquids) with an incredible dilution of Regents exams. The questions (except for physics) are getting easier, the percentage of correct answers needed to pass is ridiculously low. Why? To boost the all important graduation rate.
Comment by Jeff — August 18, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
The State Ed. Department’s dumbing down of the Regents exams, which is a fact, has not actually succeeded in its purpose. The Regents released statistics on June 22 showing they are worried about a dramatic drop in graduation rates if the new “5 Regents at 65″ standard goes into effect. Accordingly the Regents are re-evaluating whether to modify (again) the higher standards for graduation.
Our parents and educators need to have a public discussion on what an educated 18-year-old knows and can do, at a minimum, in order to continue in school, work productively, and become a responsible member of the community. In addition, how can families and educators encourage our students to achieve well beyond that minimum?
If the public debate focuses on test construction and bogus results, we’ll miss the whole point of public education.
Comment by Danny — August 19, 2009 @ 9:21 pm