Re: the letters going out to college admissions officers
Periodically, New York updates its curriculum. The last update was
1984ish and so we were due for one. Groups of teachers got together and
agreed on a "core curriculum", which took out some of the many testable
things and had---or so I heard---a twofold goal. One was to give more
time to topics could be gone into in depth, conceptually---getting away
from "plug and chug". The other was to possibly move Physics down from
12 grade---where the average student took it. The state requires (or
will require, may require, is thinking about requiring?) three
Regents-level courses---one in the "Living Environment" and one in the
"Physical Sciences." The latter includes Earth Science, Chemistry and
Physics. One or two of these are required to be followed up by passing
the Regents Exam in that subject.
So, when LE and ES updated, they took years, working with teachers,
giving exams that were eased in (whichever was higher: 75% course grade
and 25% exam or the exam, then 50-50, then 25-75,) then we had all
learned what skills we wanted to test/were testable, etc.
For chemistry and physics, there was none of this done. A "sampler"
exam came out in November (having been promised for August). There is
to be four parts to the exam---85 points written on testing day and 15
points of "lab practical." Only the written part is now available.
The sampler did not contain a scoring scale....
The scoring scale was "normed". They brought in a committee of 25
teachers to take field-tested questions and make "cut points"---how many
points a marginally passing student would have, how many a student with
mastery would have... The teachers argued, discussed and somehow came
up with a (no argument here) too low "cut point". The state reconvened,
but now less than half of the people could again leave their classrooms.
The reconvened committee picked cut points that required a student to
get 68% of the 85 points in order to pass. Similarly, at the upper
end, getting 90% of the available points earned an 86 or 87 (76 or 77
right).
A new core, a new test, failure to prepare teachers for the change, and
a very questionable scoring scale.... Students taking the AP and
getting 4s and 5s did well on this exam... Students who took IB got
expected scores and did not do well on this exam. The failure rate
tripled---from 11% statewide to three times as much. The mastery level
dropped incredibly.
When this was discussed on this list in June, someone posted where to
find the test on the web. I had a few criticisms of it too. It stated
out with 4 of the first 10 questions on projectiles; there were 4
questions on centripetal. There were no questions on friction,
magnetism, or the standard model...
In conference discussions we looked at the questions and saw how a
student could easily interpret them in a different way---leading to
mistakes.
One of the things I liked about Regents exams was that you were allowed
3 hours to work on them; most students were finished in 2 hours, and
the student who never had enough time in a regular testing situation
finally got the time they needed. My students told me that they did not
have time in 3 hours to go back over the test and check it.
I'm sure that, 4 years from now, we'll again have a valid test.
I am annoyed that NYS, in its infinite wisdom, announced that there was
nothing wrong with the test, but students could re-take in August. The
state further pointed out that we didn't have to use the exam as our
final exam grade and that chemistry and physics are, after all, for
advanced students.
Schools in NYS have heard all the brouhaha; schools otherwhere have
not. I think the letter, from the conference of superintendents of
schools, is a good idea. It points out that, this year, for this test,
the course grade should mean more than the Regents exam grade.
Kate Hafner
(who is still very angry that the student who worked very hard all year
(usuallly failing), never giving up, getting 66% of those questions
right, has a 63 on her transcript.)
This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.