School Board News

Courtesy of StockVault

Here’s a great way to test the accuracy and rigor of your state reading and math tests: Fill in the multiple-choice section of each test by answering at random.

Leave the rest of the test (such as essay questions) blank, and then use the test’s scoring key or raw score conversion table to see how you fare.

If you live in New York City, you’ll score well enough to be promoted to the next grade.

How is that possible? It should be obvious. Some states have dumbed down their exams so they can show improving student proficiency, keep voters happy, and avoid sanctions mandated by No Child Left Behind.

People have complained about the dumbing down of state tests for years. But, let’s acknowledge that, even with the best of intentions, state education officials need years of effort—with constant tweaking—to maintain a sound accountability system that accurately measures student progress.

But whether deliberately or accidently, education officials sometimes trip up spectacularly. That appears to be the case in New York City, where Daily News reporter Meredith Kolodner found this summer that “the number of correct answers needed to score a Level 2 to get promoted has sunk so low that a student can guess on the multiple choice selection and leave the rest of the test blank.”

That report prompted Diana Senechal, a former teacher and education writer, to test that conclusion. And sure enough, as she reported on gothamschools.org, she took both a state reading and math test and “filled in the answers as follows: A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, and so on.” She earned a Level 2 rating, which is all that New York City requires for promotion.

So the state test isn’t hard, and the city sets a low bar for promotion. Bad enough. But, more recently, the New York City Department of Education released school report cards that gave an A grade to 84 percent of the city’s elementary and middle schools, and a B to 13 percent.

That meant only 3 percent of city schools earned a C, D, or F, which is not bad for a school system where more than 40 percent of fourth and eighth-graders score below the basic level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The saddest part of this is that, besides misleading parents (and policymakers) on the actual academic progress of students, a flawed accountability system allows struggling students to fall through the cracks.

Diane Ravitch, a noted writer and education professor at New York University, pointed out in a Daily News column that the skewed passage rate on state tests allowed the promotion of many New York City students whose reading skills weren’t up to par. For example, school officials could look at test scores in 2006 and see that 7,019 students (10.1 percent of those taking the test) scored at only Level 1 in reading. By 2009, only 146 students (0.2 percent) scored that low.

Both state and city officials in New York—after initially defending their efforts—finally acknowledged that some changes were needed in their accountability measures.

That’s good—if a little late. But expect to read similar stories in the months ahead. Since No Child Left Behind, every state education department has been pressured to raise student achievement, and it’s long been suspected—and occasionally been made clear—that state accountability measures aren’t as rigorous as they might be.

The issue recently came up in Ohio, where more than 85 percent of the state’s 612 school systems earned ratings of effective or higher on the state’s school report card. The problem? On Ohio’s reading test, 77 percent of students score proficient, compared to only 34 percent who show proficiency based on NAEP scores.

So what’s the lesson in all of this? Perhaps school board members should take a closer look at their test scores and look at how those scores are determined under the state’s accountability rules. At best, you might well find a bit of “grade inflation” going on.

At worst? You’ll discover that some of your students need help—but their needs have been obscured by the overly optimistic reporting of some assessment systems.

Del Stover, Senior Editor