Sound Assessments Benefit
Children
Education Week again
ranked New York’s standards and accountability system the best in the nation –
this time with a perfect score of 100. In December and January, the Regents
received data that illustrate how sound assessments benefit children. New York’s
assessments, which are indispensable to standards and accountability, show a
steady rise in achievement since the Regents adopted the standards in 1996. Students who took all five Regents exams
passed in overwhelming numbers – 92 percent at 55 and 77 percent at 65 or
better. More are graduating, fewer repeat ninth grade, and fewer score at level
1 in the eight grade. A minimum passing score of 65 is now in reach. This
month we learned that New York is first in the nation in the proportion of
students earning a 3 or better on the Advanced Placement Exams.
The assessments enable us to
demand action on the issue that has been of greatest concern to Regents – the
achievement gap. We identified 136 high schools in 12 school districts with
graduation rates below 70 percent and the highest proportion of students taking
three or fewer exams. The Regents are considering a strategy to help those
students – a strategy that is attracting interest and support among leaders in
those school districts and others.
The exams are not the
problem. It’s past time to turn
from obsessive criticism of the exams and solve the real problem—the students
who are not educated to the standards. Most educators already have. Most
students who take the five exams pass them. The vast majority of students who
drop out have not taken a Regents exam. The proportion of students
scoring at level 1 in the eighth grade is comparable to the proportion who do
not take Regents exams. That is, too many students enter high school without the
knowledge necessary to do high school work. We must confront that problem with
new strategies and the many existing elements of the Regents reform, not with
easier assessments or lower standards.
Critics of Regents
assessments have suggested many radical alternatives, but nearly all amount to a
return to the two-track system that educated some students to a high standard
but many others to a low one. Let’s recall why the Regents began their
campaign to raise standards and performance in the first place. In the late 1980’s, the public, higher
education, and employers protested a system that failed to deliver a high
standard education for all. The Regents Competency Test allowed students to
graduate from high school with an 8th grade level of knowledge. The editorial
opinion across the state excoriated us for not setting higher standards. The
Regents responded with standards and strong follow through, and widespread
support quickly replaced the criticism. And then came the rising student
achievement. I have made these points continuously in support of the Regents
stand.
Some critics still assert
that some students should be awarded a diploma with fewer than five Regents
exams, or even none. That would return us to the two-tiered system the public
rejected. It would make the gap invisible again, and eliminate the pressure and
support that is essential to close the gap.
The same arguments that would
weaken the assessments would eviscerate the Regents case for $6 billion in new
education aid over the next five years. The Regents have a state aid
proposal that would provide a just and sustainable solution to New York’s
education funding problem. The test results enabled the Regents and the CFE
referees to define the cost of a sound basic education. The Court, in defining a
sound basic education rejected the old 8th grade graduation standard represented
by the Competency Test. A return to the lower standard for students in the gap
would be fatal to school aid reform.
Here are some of the proposals
still being urged upon us:
“Combine course grades and
Regents exams?” This is often what people mean by “multiple measures.” Averaging Regents exams and course grades is unsound because the work that
draws an A in one school merits only a C in another. Grade inflation is a
widely recognized problem. The Regents have a two- part requirement for
graduation. Students must earn 22 credits that are awarded locally, and pass 5
Regents exams that meet a high statewide standard. There has always been a line
between these two parts of the assessment system. To combine them crosses the
line. Teachers know that averaging course grades and Regents exams would put
enormous pressure on every teacher to raise grades. And how would averaging
work? Would course grades count for 20 percent? Or 40 percent? And how would we decide? Where is the
expert opinion based on evidence that would enable the Regents to make
such a decision? Regents exams
adhere to rigorous professional standards for test validity and reliability.
Where is the comparable evidence for the exams devised locally? The course grades averaging idea is
unworkable.
“Use portfolios?” New York had an experiment with
portfolio assessment and it failed in a crucial way. The evaluation by a
panel of national experts showed there was no evidence the portfolios met any of
the criteria defined in regulation by the Regents. The New York portfolios were
not recommended by the State Assessment Panel, which was created by Regents
policy. The New York portfolios were subjective and inconsistently scored, and
thus not an appropriate basis for determining graduation under Regents
regulations. In fact, no state has been able to demonstrate a sufficient level
of validity and reliability in a portfolio assessment system. Nevertheless, the
2001 decision on the portfolios stated that schools could again present a
portfolio concept to the Alternative Assessment panel. But such a proposal must
meet the defined criteria.
“Allow students to graduate
with four exams or even fewer?”
This would produce graduates who don’t know mathematics, or English, or
American history – take your pick. The Regents deliberated at length about
what graduates must know to be prepared for citizenship, work, further
education, and other adult responsibilities. The Regents were correct in their
policy decision about the five exams and the rigorous course requirements to
prepare for them. Many other states
have followed the Regents lead.
Some critics say the Regents
system is inflexible. That claim ignores the facts. The Regents allowed 55
as the passing grade during the phase in. They phased in the whole system one
exam at a time over several years. They permit the approval of alternatives to
the Regents exams and more than two dozen have been approved. They required
districts to help students who need extra help. Students can take the exams
multiple times. The exams in the elementary and middle levels provide early
indications of problems that can be corrected. Unlike most states, we publish every
exam so all can review them. When there were problems with the exams, the State
Education Department responded forcefully and corrected the problems, and that
attitude continues to this day.
The Regents continue to improve
the system. For example, there is
interest in expanding the Career and Technical Education program or CTE. This is
a program that combines technical curriculum, industry approved technical exams,
rigorous external review and approval, and five Regents exams. CTE expanded
rapidly after the Regents approved it, and a recent external review shows that
CTE students equal the performance of students statewide on the Regents
exams. It would be a good idea to
expand the CTE program, and New York City is working on a plan to do so.
However, proposals to create a lower level program that replaces academic exams
with technical ones has not been adopted by any state. This is not the path
recommended by the national experts who spoke to the Board during development of
CTE. It would recreate another
version of the two-tier graduation system.
For eight months the EMSC-VESID
Committee has conducted a review of the elements of the Regents policy and the
Department’s implementation of assessment, and this review should continue as a
normal part of Board oversight. The
committee reviewed Career and Technical Education, GED assessment, and aspects
of English Language Learner programs. In addition, the Regents reviewed and then
adopted revised mathematics standards for pre-kindergarten through grade eight,
and reviewed the assessment results for the 2000 cohort.
The December and January Regents
items presented two aspects of the results – the success achieved in relation to
the standards by most students, and the troubling picture of students who scored
at level 1 in the eighth grade, repeated ninth grade, and took no Regents exams
two years into high school. In the
context of these results, we recommended three actions: identify all students in
academic difficulty, and expand our programs to improve achievement with
concentration on 136 high schools in 12 districts with low graduation rates and
high proportion of students taking three or fewer Regents exams. Finally, for
the few students who achieve the Regents standards but for some reason have not
demonstrated this on a particular exam, we proposed an appeal process under
rigorous conditions that would include the following:
·
The appeal would be for students scoring within three
points of the required minimum passing score on the exam. Students must have
taken the Regents exams twice.
·
The
students must have a course average in the subject under appeal that meets or
exceeds the school’s required passing grade.
·
The students must have availed themselves of all
relevant academic help offered.
·
The students must have maintained at least a 95 percent
attendance record, exclusive of excused absences.
The local superintendent would
be responsible for conducting the appeals process under State guidelines, a
panel of teachers would review the appeal, and the number of appeals requested
and granted would appear on the school district report card.
The Regents policy says that
65 will be the minimum score for graduation starting with the class entering
ninth grade in 2005. The Regents should begin now a discussion on how to
accomplish that.
USNY Can Help Close the Achievement
Gap
Achievement is up in every
part of the educational system – so much so that rising student achievement is
the convincing argument for resources in the budget debates. And yet, a gap
remains. While more graduate from high school, fewer repeat ninth grade, and
fewer score at level 1 in middle school exams, many other students will not
graduate without direct action from the adults responsible for them – and that
includes all of us. While we are library users in vast numbers, nearly a million
New Yorkers do not have access to a public library. While performance is up in
both public and independent higher education, many New York college students do
not graduate. In spite of impressive performance gains overall, the gap in
achievement is visible in every part of the education system, from
pre-kindergarten through college.
The global economy rewards
individuals and whole societies that possess and remain current in vital
knowledge and skill. In this environment, our persistent achievement gap impedes
New York’s economic and civic vitality. Fortunately, New York has thousands of
educational and cultural institutions
-- schools public and private, colleges and universities in four sectors,
libraries and museums, archives, vocational rehabilitation systems, and public
broadcasting stations. These institutions are the University of the State of New
York (USNY), and they are a unique capacity to raise
achievement.
The Regents are determined,
out of respect for the capabilities of these institutions, to engage the leaders
of USNY to raise achievement and close the gap. On November 2, the first day of
the monthly Regents meeting, leaders of USNY institutions will assemble to
confront the achievement gap, and commit to powerful actions to close it. We
will invite leaders who have already taken risks themselves and through their
institutions to improve the educational attainment of the people of New
York. We have a prospectus prepared
with the help of a planning group. Seven regional meetings of like-minded
leaders will build momentum and propose actions for the November Summit. Leaders
from many USNY institutions, major businesses, and other partners are agreeing
to serve as co-conveners of these regional meetings.
We are grateful for the help
of a distinguished planning group that includes: Anne Byrne, NYS School
Boards Association, Michelle Cahill, NYC Board of Education, David Chesebrough,
Buffalo Science Museum, Louis Ciota, Monroe-Woodbury, Diane Collier, Buffalo
City Schools, Edmund Cortez, National Center for Disability Services, Alan
Friedman, New York Hall of Science, Mildred Garcia, Berkeley College, Stephen
Gross, Long Island University, Joseph Hankin, Westchester Community College, Sr.
Mary Jane Herb, Albany Diocese, Paula Kerger, WNET-TV, Russell Hotzler, CUNY,
Donald Jacobs, SUNY, Judith Johnson, Peekskill City School District, Penny
Leask, NYS PTA, Margarita Mayo, The Business Council, Edward McCormick, Family
Partnership Center, Brian McLane, retired from VESID, Donald Ogilvie, Erie I
BOCES, Jose Sanchez, Health and Hospitals Corp. of NYC, Charles Santelli, NYS
United Teachers, Robert Scott, Adelphi University and Norm Silverstein, WXXI
Rochester.
Middle Schools Must
Change
Middle school performance is
improving, but not nearly fast enough. Middle school must prepare all children
academically and developmentally. Today, too many students enter high school
unprepared. To change this fact, the Regents considered available research,
listened to all interested parties, including the children and their parents,
defined new policy, asserted design principles that should govern the conduct of
all middle schools, and created appropriate flexibility in three options for
schools in different situations. The State Education Department has prepared a
strategy to implement Regents policy on middle level and made appropriate
revisions to reflect the debate in January. It is time to vote to adopt that
strategy.
Statewide
Plan for Higher Education
The Regents have spent the
last few months reviewing various components of the draft Statewide Plan for
Higher Education. Before the Committee on Higher Education and Professional
Practice this month, is the first full draft of the Plan, which incorporates
suggestions made by the Committee members, the four higher education sectors,
and additional data relevant to a number of sections of the Plan. This version,
with any revisions suggested by the Regents at your February meeting, will serve
as the Tentative Statewide Plan for Higher Education and will be shared with the
field for the public hearings scheduled for March and April
2005.
Ready for Work
The high school diploma
should signify that the graduate is ready for citizenship, higher education, and
other adult responsibilities, including ready for work. For more than two
decades the business community has asserted their need for graduates who possess
both the hard academic skills and what they call the “soft skills” –
decision-making, teamwork, and the ability to learn quickly, among others.
At the February Regents
meeting the Regents will hear from members of the SWIB about a multi-state
effort to define and measure work readiness and to recognize individuals who
have those skills.
There is an opportunity for
joint venture. Education cannot meet its potential without partners in the
business community. They have been and remain among the strongest advocates for
the Regents learning standards. The SWIB endorsed the standards soon after its
creation. State Education Department leaders, in turn, have been assertive
advocates for the creation of the SWIB, and helped write the report to the
Governor entitled New York State’s Workforce Development System, which
defined the work of that board. I have been an active member of the board. Just as educators need business
partners, the SWIB also needs educational institutions at all levels to prepare
students for a work-readiness credential.
Regents have met with
members of the SWIB to discuss their concern that a work-readiness credential
could create an incentive to drop out of high school. The SWIB has responded
with commitments to the high school diploma as the minimum credential for youth,
with the work-readiness designation as an endorsement to the diploma. There are
remaining issues of interest to both the SWIB and the Department, which concern
the validity of a work-readiness assessment.
Recommendation: That the Regents support the continuing
development of the work-readiness concept through the State Workforce Investment
Board with the understanding that the high school diploma is the minimum
credential for youth..
The Executive Budget is Not
Sufficient
Once again the Executive Budget
proposes to break up the University of the State of New York by removing the
vocational rehabilitation part of VESID and the whole of Cultural Education,
including the State Library, State Museum, State Archives, and Public
Broadcasting. We oppose these proposals because these entities are part of our
educational mission and essential to raising achievement.
This change would accomplish no
savings. The funding for Cultural Education is supported by a special revenue
account, and thus is not a charge against the General Fund.
The budget would also cut State
Education Department operations by $2 million, and allocate the same amount to
create a new office of school accountability under the control of the Executive
branch. Such an accountability office is unnecessary in the opinion of the
court-appointed referees in the CFE matter, and we agree. For several years New
York’s school accountability system has been ranked among the highest in the
nation by Education Week, which this year gave New York a 100 – a score
earned by no other state. In addition, New York’s accountability system led
President Bush to designate New York one of the first five states to be fully
approved under the then-new No Child Left Behind Act.
The Executive budget proposes an
increase of $526 million in State aid to education, which includes $325 million
for Sound Basic Education. This is not a sufficient response to the need. In
many respects the proportions for distribution of this aid are consistent with
the Regents State aid recommendation, but the Executive proposal is much
smaller. Although the Executive
proposal is characterized as the first year in a five-year plan, the bill
language makes changes for one year only, and this does not reform the State and
system.
Some higher education
programs have received level funding, including Teachers of Tomorrow, Liberty
Partnership, Teachers Opportunity Program, Bundy Aid for independent colleges,
Science and Technology Entry Program (STEP) and its collegiate counterpart
(CSTEP). However, for the collegiate opportunity programs (i.e. HEOP for the
independent colleges, EOP for SUNY and SEEK/CD for CUNY), the Executive is
recommending the removal of the supplemental student financial aid component.
For HEOP, this would result in a reduction of $10.5 million. The Governor is
also recommending that fifty percent of a student's TAP award be withheld until
the student graduates.
The Executive is proposing a
facilities capital matching program for the public and independent colleges of
$250 million, which will result in an investment of at least $1 billion in our
higher education infrastructure.
The recent court decision in
Pataki v. New York State Assembly, et
al. and Silver, et al. v.
Pataki declares that the Executive constructs the budget. The
Legislature may not alter the Executive appropriation bills. Legislatures may
lower or eliminate the appropriation, or may decline to act with the intent of
compelling a negotiated settlement. Under these circumstances, all interested
parties must engage with the Executive, Senate, and Assembly.
Work of the Quality
Committee
The Regents Committee on Quality
has nearly completed its review of the Regents priorities for 2005 and the
renewal of the Strategic Plan. The major elements of both have been included in
the Board’s performance agreement with the Commissioner. The Quality Committee
will also continue its oversight of the plans for the USNY summit that will
constitute the first day of the November Regents meeting, and will discuss a
proposed format for Regents meetings to better support policy development and
policy review.
Recommendation: That the Regents approve the statement
of their priorities and the strategic plan.
