The New York State Board of Regents is engaged in discussion and feedback on high school graduation requirements. This effort started three years ago but was delayed due to the pandemic. One of the more controversial issues is what to do about the “Regents Exams.”
The new single set of tests would be different, but the question for staff was what to name the new tests. The decision was not to create a new name for the new tests but to continue to call them Regents exams because the term Regents Exam has automatic respect. I recall someone mentioning that it was the “Gold Standard” of assessments. During that discussion, I questioned requiring every student to pass the test to get a diploma. Instead, I suggested requiring the tests and closely examining schools that gave diplomas to many students with low scores. The group quickly overruled my opinion.
The new exams were different while still having the same Regents name. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma, it demanded pedagogical, legal, psychometrically, and political changes. The tests changed from fixed scoring, where 100 meant 100% of answers were correct, to scale scoring, meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100-point scale rather than a 4-point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness? Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few years.
Some vocal critics claim these exams, of which students must pass five separate exams to earn a diploma, are artificial, outdated, and arbitrary hurdles that prevent students from earning a diploma. Many educators admit the exams have become amplified in importance, demanding too much attention by “teaching to the test” and evaluating teacher and principal effectiveness on pass rates. Those on the side of retaining the exams insist there must be standard measures of learning outcomes to hold the school accountable.
A portion of my education career was spending two decades working in the New York State Education Department. I left the department in 2000 so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, I was involved in the staff discussions in the mid 90’s when the policy of exams and graduation requirements were changed. At that time New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects which had a century-old history of being rigorous measures of students learning. The other set of tests were newer and were considered lower level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.
I spent two decades working in the New York State Education Department as a portion of my education career. I left the department in 2000, so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, in the mid-’90s, I was involved in staff discussions of exams, graduation policies, and requirements. At that time, New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects, which had a century-old history of rigorous measures of student learning. The other set of tests was newer and was considered lower-level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.
Well, the new exams, while still the same Regents name were different. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma it demanded changes pedagogically, legally, psychometrically and politically. The tests changed from fixed scoring where 100 meant 100% of answers correct to scale scoring meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100 point scale rather than a 4 point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness. Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few year.
As a result of these changes, which seemed like logical decisions at the time, we find that the Regents Exams are no longer the Gold Standard. But they have evolved into a complex mishmash of education jargon and demand inflated importance in high school learning. As a result, local decision-making and the body of work that students undertake in high school are ignored. Instead, it is all about the tests.
I doubt the Regents Exams will survive in this discussion. I proudly recall studying for, taking, and passing high school Regents exams when I was in high school 60 years ago. But, unfortunately, the current version does not generate public confidence or good educational purpose.
I am a supporter of tests; research has shown that well-designed assessments contribute to high levels of student achievement. However, tying the Regents exams as a graduation requirement has led to too many unintended negative consequences. The high school diploma should be based on the larger body of student work. Not all of that work is the same for each student. Some exams should be part of that body of work regardless of name. Finally, the state should refrain from punishing students by denying diplomas to students who fail to meet standards on state tests. Instead, the state’s role should be to hold accountable schools that award diplomas to students with low achievement rates.