In a big step forward for real school reform, Néw York City Schools Chancellor Carmen Farina announced that promotion would no longer be based in a single standardized test, but on multiple measures. This is a major change from the Bloomberg era, when test scores were the single most crucial determinant of whether students would be promoted or failed.
Here is the announcement:
CHANCELLOR FARIÑA ANNOUNCES NEW PROMOTION POLICY FOR STUDENTS IN GRADES 3-8
Multiple Measures to Replace State Test as Driver of Promotion Decisions
Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña today announced changes to the Department of Education’s promotion policy for students in grades 3-8 with standard promotion criteria. The proposed new policy, upon approval of the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP), would go into effect this school year in order to comply with recent changes in State law and to allow educators to make decisions about the students they know best while maintaining high standards. The policy will be voted on at the PEP meeting in May.
“We have listened and worked closely with families, teachers and principals to establish a new promotion policy that complies with State law and empowers educators, takes the temperature down around testing, and keeps rigorous standards in place,” said Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña. “This new way forward maintains accountability, but mitigates the unintended consequences of relying solely on a single test. Through a comprehensive evaluation of student work using multiple measures, our new policy is a step forward for students, parents, and schools.”
“It’s absolutely vital that students are ready to succeed in the next grade when they are promoted. The best way to do that, as the governor and legislature have affirmed, is to use multiple measures to make sure students are ready for promotion,” said New York Education Commissioner John King. “We’ll work together with NYCDOE to make sure all our students are on the path to college and career readiness.”
Ten years ago, the DOE implemented a student promotion policy based on State exam scores. That approach, while intended to raise expectations for all students, often led to teachers “teaching to the test” and caused a great deal of anxiety in school communities.
Going forward, instead of having student promotion from one grade to the next based solely on exam results, teachers and principals will now determine which students are at risk of not making sufficient progress based on a more comprehensive, authentic review of their classroom work in addition to their test scores. This shift to multiple measures represents another important step toward aligning our teaching with the more rigorous Common Core standards. This new approach will bring New York City in accordance with other districts in the State and with the recent changes to the State law.
To develop the new policy, the Department consulted with and gathered feedback from families, teachers, principals, and education advocates. Many identified that, under the current policy, a student’s body of work over the course of the entire year was overlooked in favor of a single, standardized exam. To remedy those concerns and incorporate multiple measures in accordance with State law, the DOE plans to implement several important changes:
· Empowering Educators – Based on a review of student work from the year, teachers and principals will identify the students they believe may be at risk of not being able to succeed in the next grade, even with support. State test results for the lowest-performing students will continue to be shared with schools in June. Schools may use this information as one of multiple pieces of evidence to assess student readiness for the next grade level, but they may not use it as the primary or major factor in those decisions.
· Authentic Student Work – Teachers will complete promotion portfolios for students identified for possible retention. The guidance provided to schools about this process will be revised so that student promotion portfolios align to the Common Core, represent real classroom learning, and incorporate student work already completed throughout the school year.
· Consistent, Rigorous Standards – The reviews of student portfolios in schools across the city will be judged against clear, consistent, criteria aligned to the Common Core. Superintendents will oversee this process for their schools.
“The NYC Department of Education’s new promotion policy reflects the best available research and is good common sense,” said Dr. Linda Darling Hammond, Professor of Education at Stanford Graduate School of Education. “Students are more than test results, and this sound policy reflects that fact. Promotion decisions will be based on multiple measures and will consist of a comprehensive review of the skills they’ve learned in the classroom. In addition, children will receive more useful supports to improve their skills so they can progress on a solid foundation.”
“The new promotion policy recognizes the scientific consensus that promotion and retention decisions should never be based solely on a child’s performance on a single standardized test,” said Dr. Aaron Pallas, Professor of Sociology and Education at Teachers College at Columbia University. “This change returns the responsibility of assessing a child’s readiness for the next grade to the educators most knowledgeable about his or her academic performance throughout the school year — the child’s teacher and principal.”
“Although the old policy was designed to end social promotion through grade retention, thousands of students were still entering high schools throughout New York City unprepared academically,” said Dr. Pedro Noguera, Professor of Education at Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Development at New York University. “The Chancellor’s proposal will provide schools with a broader range of tools with which to assess a student’s performance. If these can be combined with effective, early interventions, we should see a significant increase in the number of students who graduate from high school college ready.”
As in past years, students whose promotion portfolios demonstrate that they are not ready for the next grade level, even with support, will be recommended for summer school. Superintendents will review school-level decisions before they are finalized. In the past, when students completed summer school, their promotion was ultimately tied to a second standardized test in August. This year, student work from summer school will be incorporated into the promotion portfolio. Principals will review these portfolios in August and make a holistic promotion decision for each student. Superintendents will continue to review promotion appeals for cases in which a parent disagrees with the principal’s decision.
In 2013, consistent with prior school years, approximately 10% of students in grades 3-8 were recommended for summer school, with 2.5% ultimately retained. The DOE anticipates consistent levels of retention with this new approach.
Students with disabilities and English language learners who have different promotion criteria will not be impacted by this change in policy. Moreover, the promotion policy for students in grades K-2 and high school will remain consistent with previous years.
The new policy requires a revision to the Chancellor’s Regulation A-501, which will be voted on by the Panel for Educational Policy at its May 29, 2014 meeting. If the PEP approves the policy, the revised policy will go into effect this year.

Here is hoping Chancellor Farina can go on record that she is in agreement with the over 30 local and national organizations supporting the TAKING BACK OUR SCHOOLS SOS Rally on May 17th.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1415604278695463/
Declaration, Protest, Successes, and Call to Action”
Calling all NYC Metro Area community activists, the “voices of resistance”, families, students, civil rights advocates, voters, immigrant families, policymakers and legislators, union members, teachers, faith leaders, and all communities that believe in a good public education for all!
Join us in a march and rally seeking to create & sustain a public school system that provides a fully funded, equitable, community-based education for every child. This means that decisions about our children’s schooling would be made democratically by families and professional educators, free of corporate and political intervention.
This rally and march is part of the national Testing Resistance & Reform Spring campaign. We aim to support the efforts of parents, teachers and community members to have public schools that work for the community.
LikeLike
Welcome to the Ravitch Resistance. So good to see the groundswell of grass roots pushback against corporate reform and the neo-liberal attempt to dismantle the public school system in America.
Consider joining:
THE NETWORK for PUBLIC EDUCATION
Saying NO to Punitive, Test-Based Reform
Working Together to Stop the Madness
Stay fierce and fearless in the face of this invasion.
LikeLike
It is good to stay in touch across the nation, but each State needs to coordinate its own resistance at the State level. All politics is local and we have more influence at the State level. Federalization is our problem; but may not be our solution. Education is a State issue. There is more dysfunction with our government at the Federal level.
LikeLike
As I recall, no judgment was made about kids based on these tests, which didn’t arrive until the following school year. I may be able to retrieve it from the “memory hole” that Orwell mentions.
LikeLike
Take me back to the good old days of social promotion. It’s all about running the kids through the boondoggle and jobs program of summer school, where they can enjoy doing more test prep “when the living is easy”. Farina already says that she supports Common Core and its materials. As a Chancellor, it would be unprofessional to back down on what she perceives as being best for children.
LikeLike
Farina has also stated publicly that a major part of her job is “selling” the Common Core to parents.
The tone here in NYC has changed; the substance, not so much.
LikeLike
Sounds like a lot of new paperwork for teachers.
LikeLike
This is good and is sort of what we were doing in California starting in the late 1980s. But I don’t know if that system that used multiple measures is still in place. I’ll have to ask my friends who are still teaching.
FLERP: Teachers have always had a lot of paperwork beyond just correcting student work.
LikeLike
So they won’t mind a lot of new paperwork?
LikeLike
Oh, no, we always hated it when a court ruling, Sacramento or Washington DC passed new legislation that added more paperwork. And it’s much worse than when I retired in August 2005. A friend who’s still in the classroom said he’s so busy now filling out forms and making the mandated phone calls to parents he has no time to correct student work so he hired a retired English teacher at $25 an hour to correct it for him. I have no idea how much he pays out of his own pocket. I didn’t ask.
His district requires a form be filled out to document every phone call. Administrators and politicians are paranoid with distrust so they want a paper trail.
His district is so scared of the Common Core punishment, that they require all their academic teachers to make personal phone calls every night to remind parents of homework and to ask the parents to make sure it gets done. When you’re teaching between 150 to 200 students in five or six classes each day, that’s a lot of phone calls. I think he divides the calls up over a week so he’s only making about 30 to 40 a night. And of course, its not possible to reach every parent and sometimes numbers are disconnected requiring that teachers put in a request to the school’s office for an update on the student info card.
His district installed an automated homework hotline years ago, but it seems not enough parents were calling in to find out what their kids had to work on and study each night.
LikeLike
Multiple measures…that still doesn’t solve the problem of kids being ready for the next grade, if in fact CCS is still in place along with rubrics and cut scores. Furthermore, what good does it do to lower cut scores when the curriculum & instruction isn’t suited for kids at that age appropriate level? What we’ll end up doing is passing kids based on the new, lower cut-scores.
Since time, there are some kids who will not be ready for the next grade. However, CCS have proven that MORE kids aren’t ready for the next grade level. Summer school is not going to help kids who are not ready for concepts they aren’t ready for developmentally. Multiple measures on stuff kids aren’t ready for is only going to produce the same results if we are still trying to “maintain high standards” as it pertains to CCS.
“The DOE anticipates consistent levels of retention with this new approach.” Brilliant idea! Have they read the research on retention?
This really sums up the fact that people think that kids don’t have individuals skills and talent which begins and should be recognized at an early age. But reformers long-term goal (“college-ready”) does not justify the means.
Instead of multiple measures, kids need multiple ways to learn and discover their strengths and education should help them get there not dictate who to become.
LikeLike
“The DOE anticipates consistent levels of retention”
That’s what the DOE said last year after the first ELA and math tests. It basically sounds like the DOE is maintaining a general policy of sending 10% of students to summer school, whether or not the tests are the sole factor or one of many others. What a big step forward for real education reform.
LikeLike
I don’t think they mean what they say, because they won’t foot the bill for summer school. On the other hand, teachers and kids will be thrilled and say, ” yay more common core!” In their dreams. They couldn’t get me to do summer school, if I had to teach more of it.
LikeLike
Summer school looked pretty fun in that one Mark Harmon movie.
LikeLike
Exactly, we must feed our Bell curve young
to the summer test prep minotaur each year,
so that the privateer publishers will bring us favor(s).
LikeLike
“instead of multiple measures, kids need multiple ways to learn and discover their strengths and education should help them get there not dictate who to become.” I like this! I agree.
LikeLike
Hmm, will Lord Cuomo bring down a new ruling that overrides local decisions?
LikeLike
This policy is actually a state mandate — it’s required by amendments to the Education Law in the budget that passed a couple weeks ago. It’s not the bold, brave initiative by Carmen Farina, as it might appear from this post.
LikeLike
“facepalm”
(Is that how that’s done?)
LikeLike
“I love the smell of facepalm in the morning!”
But seriously, how stupid are we supposed to be?
LikeLike
To be fair, “DOE Lawyers Tell Fariña to De-Emphasize State Tests to Comply with New State Education Laws” isn’t likely to make someone grab a pitchfork or light a torch.
LikeLike
“I love the smell of facepalm in the morning.”
Yeah, but “Farina don’t surf!”
LikeLike
With all of the test prep built into the curriculum, where are the other measures?
LikeLike
“With all of the test prep built into the curriculum, where are the other measures?”
The other measures are the detailed report cards that track students’ progress throughout the year, which actually provide much greater quantity and quality of feedback about how a student is doing. Before this policy was promulgated, a bad test score that the teacher knew wasn’t representative of the student’s ability could trump the report card and result in the student being left back. This is now changed, and the test score can only be considered as one among many factors.
LikeLike
If you have been in the classrooms, teachers scramble for tests outside of the Common Core. Much testing surrounds this Common Core curriculum, which itself has been untested. I am sure that a teacher can find a number, but will it be based on a rich portfolio of various kinds of work done individually and collectively? This is particularly true with close reading passages and nonsense math. Why would these obviously flawed tests be used at all? I believe that Cuomo has already come out saying the tests will not be used for kids. I am not sure if we are looking at a “profile in courage.”
LikeLike
Ms. Farina is right to come out with this latest declaration and it will be pivotal to see exactly the devil in the details has to how multiple measures get defined.
However, while student promotion is no longer dependent (mainly?) on standardized tests, where does Ms. Farina’s delcaration leave teachers with regard to having test scores, local and standardized, tied to their employability and APPR?
Hello! . . . . . . . . .
Is anyone out there and really listening to that last question?
LikeLike
Quid pro Cuomo had no problem absolving the students but refusing to release the grip of APPR/VAM. He called the tests (in a campaign ad) “premature, anxiety provoking, and unfair.” Telling students that the tests don’t count but still hanging the results over the reputations and careers of teachers. Heck-of-a-job-Andy
LikeLike
Yes, I agree.
But no one here in NY state is quite done with the reprehensible-lizard-faced-druggy-looking-angry-I-wasn’t-able-to-hold-down-my-marriage-with-a-Kennedy-and-I’m-nothing-like-my-father Andrew Cuomo . . . .
LikeLike
He makes the despicable look good
LikeLike
He makes Lucifer look like Saint Agnes . . . .
LikeLike
Robert, your “lizard-faced” comment make me go to Cuomo’s Wikipedia page to take a look. There I found this hilarious tidbit about his current significant other, Sandra Lee, a Food Network host: “Much of the criticism of Lee has coalesced around a recipe for “Kwanzaa Cake” that she demonstrated on a 2003 episode of Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee. The recipe consisted of angel food bundt cake topped with icing, cinnamon, apple pie filling, pumpkin seeds and corn nuts (all store-bought), with seven Kwanzaa candles then inserted into the cake.[16]
Food writer Anthony Bourdain, who has been harshly critical of Lee in general, described the video clip of this segment of the show as “eye searing” and “a war crime”.[17][18][19] The cake was called “scary” by the Houston Chronicle,[20] and “the most ghastly-sounding dish in Lee’s culinary repertoire” by Tulsa World.[21] Salon.com wrote that the video “takes pride of place in the pantheon of hilarious culinary disaster videos”.[22]”
LikeLike
Ponderosa,
Therefore we have a repulsive recipe for a repulsive governor. And it insults those who celebrate Kwanzaa. The least she could have done was to replicate an authentic recipe and not sparkle this one up with her Whole-Foods-izing of what is probably an amazing dessert from Africa.
Lee can use all the sugar she wants in her cake, but there is no quantity in the world – including the amount Paula Deen has unwittingly consumed – to sweeten up a very bitter soul known as Andrew Cuomo.
I wonder if Lee copied her partner’s formulaic, pre-packaged and canned thinking by using a cake mix . . . . .
Duncan Hines, beware . . . . . . .
LikeLike
Correction:
“Ms. Farina is right to come out with this latest declaration, and it will be pivotal to see exactly the devil in the details affects how multiple measures get defined.”
LikeLike
Two thoughts. If the tests are flawed, they should not be used at all.second, retention does not work. All it does is produce drop outs — not my opinion.it is what the research has told us for decades.
LikeLike
“if” ?????????????
LikeLike
“If the tests are flawed,”
By definition the whole process to make the tests, i.e., the educational standard and standardized testing process, is so flawed, contains so many ontological and epistemological errors that any results are INVALID as proven by Noel Wilson in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at:
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike