Ten years ago, the New York State Education Department got embroiled in a very embarrassing scandal. A vigilant parent discovered that many passages on the Regents’ exam in English had been heavily rewritten to remove any references to race, religion, gender, sex, and a bunch of other topics. The parent’s discovery merited a front-page story in the New York Times and caused the State Commissioner of Education to promise that it would never happen again. (http://gothamschools.org/2012/04/23/states-promise-to-bar-edited-test-passages-repeats-2002-vow/)
Of course, it did happen again. On the very next administration of the Regents, there was a single stanza from Matthew Arnold’s famous poem, “Dover Beach,” not the full four stanzas of the poem. The last stanza begins, “Ah, love, let us be true to one another!” but the state changed it to, “Ah, friend, let us be true to one another.”
How soon they forget. Now with the Pineapple story, we learn that they never stopped meddling with the text of passages. They can’t help themselves. They think they can write better than Elie Wiesel, better than Isaac Bashevis Singer, better than Daniel Pinkwater.
I told Gotham Schools, trying to be charitable, that maybe they forgot the promise made a decade ago. But I was too kind. The NY SED just isn’t very smart. They send out tests with egregious errors, and the Commissioner blames the teachers who reviewed it. The math tests that will be given tomorrow has errors, but no one at SED will admit they are culpable. Stuff happen is what they say. Don’t blame us.
In 2010, the Regents commissioned a study of the state tests and independent experts said the tests had been dumbed down, the cut scores had been lowered in an effort to meet NCLB’s absurb target. So test scores across the state plummeted to reflect the reality that the SED had gamed the system. But was anyone at SED held accountable? Of course not.
The moral of the story: Accountability begins at the top.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
NYSED officials have have taken a heavy-handed top down approach to education “reform,” that is until mismanagement is charged. The light of truth gets switched on and they scurry like so many bugs in a basement. Accountability does not apply to those making the rules. A once exemplary public education system has been dismantled quickly by the hands of a few. Follow the money and find the culprits.
[…] Diane Ravitch now says she was too charitable when she said the state forgot a test promise. (DR’s Blog) […]
And I thought the moral was that accountability doesn’t have sleeves!
Let’s list a few of the many NYS testing fiascoes over the past 10 years:
June 2002 and 2003 Physics Regents http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/18/nyregion/outcry-over-regents-physics-test-but-officials-in-albany-won-t-budge.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (Too hard)
June 2003 Math A Regents http://www.math.nyu.edu/~braams/links/regents-0306.html (Too hard)
March 2007 Math 5 and 7 http://www.nysut.org/newyorkteacher_7097.htm (Misaligned protractors)
May 2009 Grades 3-8 Cut Score Controversy http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_ny-education-testing.html (Too easy)
April 2012 Pineapplegate (Just plain weird)
Rarely an “I’m Sorry” from the Education Department or Test Publisher since June 2003, just slick non-answers and defensive tactics to shift the blame.
Richard Mills, answering honestly, transparently, and humbly: http://nysut.org/research/bulletins/22030624tests_mills.html
Richard Mills, defensive: “You should look at the protractor and you would see that the issue is literally very small.”
Richard Mills, slick: “I did what was appropriate, and the record speaks for itself,”
John King, defensive: “First of all…” http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/CommissionerKingStatementonTheHareandthePineapple.html
If I were one of the mega-publishers, I’d be very concerned right now. My guess is that Pearson’s Albany and DC lobbying expenses will go through the roof once things settle down this spring.
I think the June 2003 Math A exam was the beginning of the end of New York’s leadership as an education leader. The test was written to the standards, and the rigorous standards were too hard for most students. Ever since then, New York has done its best to play the high standards game through psychometrics and statistical games, not real student learning.
One quick solution? Eliminate scaled scoring and return to a pure percentage-based system. Earn a 65% on a developmentally appropriate measure of student learning and you pass.
If more than 10% of students fail the exam, review the level of difficulty of the assessment.
If fewer than 5% of students fail the exam, review the level of difficulty of the assessment.
Without an honest a priori estimate of failure rates, everything else becomes smoke and mirrors.