New York State Department of Ed Responsibility

Lies, more lies and statistics

According to a memo from NYSED dated July 28, 2010 (http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/Grade3-8_Results07282010.html), “cut scores for the state’s 2010 Grade 3-8 assessments in Math and English tests were set according to new Proficiency standards redefined to align them with college-ready performance”. My first thoughts went to the several times I heard speakers in the last decade of educational testing and standards. How many times did we hear that the “new standards” were set so that students would be prepared for college (http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2001/june01/standards.shtml)? How odd then the statement from the memo. “As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient, many fewer students met or exceeded the new Mathematics and English Proficiency standards in 2010 than in previous years”. Wasn’t the bar supposed to be set there?

There are at least two logical inferences from this last statement from the memo. First inference, the bar can be moved. Doesn’t that empty the word “standard” of any meaning? Do not the standards set the bar? Isn’t moving the bar considered a deceitful activity, a lie? Second inference, many students in past years were not really as proficient as advertised. Let me quote again from the memo "We are doing a great disservice when we say that a child is proficient when that child is not. Nowhere is this more true than among our students who are most in need. There, the failure to drill down and develop accurate assessments creates a burden that falls disproportionately on English Language Learners, students with disabilities, African-American and Hispanic young people and students in economically disadvantaged districts” But doesn’t the accuracy of the assessments in this instance rest on where the bar is placed? Doesn’t “failure to develop accurate assessments” really mean the NYSED failed to put the bar in the right place? Is this educational language an attempt to deflect that responsibility?

More lies are implicit in Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch statements. “The Regents and I believe these results can be a powerful tool for change. They clearly identify where we need to do more and provide real accountability to bring about the focused attention needed to implement the necessary reforms to help all of our children catch up and succeed”. If the movement of bar created lower proficiency rates, then how could knowing the results be a powerful tool for change? How does knowing that we are not doing as well as we thought help us “clearly identify” anything let alone “implement necessary reforms”? The results of these tests simply beg the question, what are the necessary reforms? A question I believe Outcome-based Education has been discussing for the better part of a decade.

The writing of these thoughts brings to mind three questions. First, what has prompted all this activity at NYSED? Second, what have been the responses of the educational community? Third, where does all this leave a parent, a school, a teacher, a school district? In this last case, I would summit in search of statistics that really mean something. I would appeal to the reader to use this Blog for discussion of these questions and more.

http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/ela-math/steps-to-determine-rawscale-score.html