Showing posts with label Math test scores. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Math test scores. Show all posts

Sunday, July 6, 2008

ELA and Math Test Scores -- Experts Question Increases

State test scores for 2008 can be found here (Math) and here (ELA)

An expert who serves as the State's top technical adviser on testing is concerned about grade inflation and has called for an independent study of this year's unusual and unprecedented rise in test scores across the state. Writing in the NY Sun, Elizabeth Green has the story here.

Elizabeth also has a disturbing story about cheating on the state tests here. An excerpt:

A sixth-grader at M.S. 201. said that a teacher once looked over his shoulder and said, "Ooh, is that right? Is that the right answer?" encouraging him to erase and try again.

Meanwhile, 11 of 12 P.S. 48 graduates interviewed last week said they were coached during the state tests.

They said that teachers would look over their shoulders and instruct them to try again and again until they got answers right.

"They'd be like, 'Is that the right answer?' — until they make sure it's right," a sixth-grader said.

"When I was at 48, I never went to class, and I still passed the test," a seventh-grader said. "If you go to graduation, you pass."

Higher test scores could pay off for M.S. 201's teachers this year. The school is one of about 200 participating in a trial project to give teachers bonuses if their students perform well on state tests.

The bonuses average $3,000 a teacher.


Under the Bloomberg administration, test results have been woven into a complex system of carrots and sticks where principal bonuses, teacher merit pay, school ratings, school budget bonuses, principal dismissals and school closings all hinge on test scores. It is not surprising that pressure to score high has lead to a culture of test prep, grade inflation and cheating.

Update: see the NY Sun for a properly skeptical oped about the sharp rise in NY State test scores.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

“Here are the numbers. Everything is improving. Trust us.”


“Tell me the result you want, and I’ll find a way to make the numbers show it."

Anyone with a good feel for numbers and a background in math or statistics will recognize the ironic truth underlying this statement about mathematical deception. Nowhere in recent years has this approach seemed more evident than in the NYC Department of Education, most recently in the NY Daily News story about the decreasing level of difficulty in the NY State 4th Grade math exams.

As Erin Einhorn reported in yesterday's Daily News , NYC pass rates on the 4th Grade exams in math since 2002 have tracked very closely to the degree of difficulty of the exam itself. As the tests have gotten easier, the NYC (and NYS) pass rates have increased almost in perfect lockstep. This determination was made by obtaining information from the State Education Department, but the Daily News supplemented it with their own small-scale lab experiment with 34 youngsters who were participating in a Brooklyn College summer program. The kids took the 2002 and 2005 NYS math exams and, for the most part, concurred that the 2005 test was easier. In fact, 24 of the 34 young students did better on the 2005 exam.

Even for those well-versed in mathematical statistics, psychometrics (the science of testing and intelligence measurement) is an arcane subject. Suffice to say, all standardized tests are created from large banks of potential questions, each of which is field tested to determine its degree of difficulty, called a p-value. A question with a p-value of 0.65 means that 65% of students tested will likely get that question right, based on the field test results. A test can therefore be “rated” with a p-value according to the values of the questions chosen to make up that test.

Since 2002, the p-value of the state 4th Grade math exam has risen from 0.61 to 0.74 in 2007. Remarkably, the number of questions needed to get a passing score has actually decreased at the same time, from 40 in 2002 to 39 in 2007. Not surprisingly, the NYC pass rate has increased from 52% to 74.1%, with the largest year-to-year increase occurring in 2003 when the p-value had its biggest increase (from 0.61 to 0.68). Defenders of the tests argue that the pass rate for an easier test can be adjusted by requiring more correct answers to pass, but how many of us (adult or child) would prefer an easy test requiring 40 correct answers to a more representative test requiring 39 or 38 correct answers? I certainly would.

In The Truth about Testing, author W. James Popham points out that questions with p-values between 0.4 and 0.6 are best suited to creating the degree of score spread necessary for a standardized test questions to be reliable differentiators of student performance (higher score spreads are interpreted as indicators of higher test reliability in measuring whatever it’s supposed to measure). It seems odd that the State can be creating tests with a p-value of 0.74, suggesting that 74% of students should be able to pass (and, in fact, exactly 74.1% did just that last year in NYC). Yet the Mayor and Chancellor have been solely crediting their own new policies for increases that would be expected just by the increasingly easier nature of the exam itself.

Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have aggressively adopted the business model mantra that whatever isn’t measured can’t be managed (and incentivized) to the world of public school education. This policy has resulted in more and more standardized testing of students and increased collection and manipulation of school-level data on every aspect of school operations. Success or failure of Mayoral control, we are led to believe by the Chancellor, is entirely contingent on these measures: test scores, attendance levels, graduation rates, school report cards, and the like.

Bad enough that this is the factory model par excellence applied to education – you can’t measure a student’s found passion for theater or chorus, a discovered pleasure in reading, the classroom excitement over a new insight into the process of history, the joy of seeing one’s poem or short story in print, or the deep self-satisfaction that comes from further, teacher-led independent exploration of a science topic. Worse, it is solely the DOE that collects, cleans, massages, selects, and controls this information behind closed computer room and office doors. Since no external oversight, audit agency, independent review or verification exists, the message is clear: “Here are the numbers. Everything is improving. Trust us.”

Disturbingly, it’s the fox who is not only running the hen house but also reporting the excellence of the results to the farmer.

-- Steve Koss, PTA President of Manhattan Center for Science and Math

Update: see today's Daily News, where leading experts call for an independent audit agency as exists in other states, to verify the validity of these exams.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Diane Ravitch: Reflections on the Math Scores in New York City and State

Math scores are up in New York City on state tests in grades three through eight. They are up in every grade. That’s terrific news for kids and their teachers, who have been working hard to improve achievement.

Last year, math scores were down, so the increase this year was a welcome change.

Across the span of grades 3-8 in the city’s schools, there was a gain of 8.1 percentage points, as compared to lower scores in 2006. The state has tested grades 3-8 (in response to the federal No Child Left Behind law) for only two years, in 2006 and 2007, so it is impossible to compare the scores for grades 3-8 in 2007 to any other year except 2006. As a matter of record, the largest increase in a single grade in a single year in New York City occurred in 2003, when math scores in the fourth grade jumped by nearly 15 points. This was the last state test reported prior to the implementation of Chancellor Joel Klein’s reform program.

This is what happened in this year’s math tests:

Math scores are up across the state; the gains in New York City outpaced the state gains. In grades 3-8, 72.7% across the state met the standards in 2007, compared to 65.8% in 2006, a gain of 6.9 points statewide. In the same grades, the proportion of New York City’s students meeting the standards rose from 57.0% to 65.1%, a gain of 8.1 points. Very impressive gains indeed, for both the state and the city, especially the city.

When Chancellor Klein’s Children First reforms were launched in September 2003, 66.7% of children in fourth grade met the state standards in math. In 2007, 74.1% of fourth grade students in New York City met the state standards in math. That is a cumulative gain during the years of mayoral control of 7.4 points, or a shade less than 2 points per year.

Recently, the press department at the New York City Department of Education had been claiming credit for the huge gains of 2003, but these scores (14.7 points in a single year) were recorded before the implementation of Children First.

Apparently the press department now claims that the city has gained 27.8 percentage points in grades 3-8 since 2002, but that seems unlikely. For one thing, the state has been testing these grades for only two years (before then, only grades 4 and 8 were tested annually). The press office seems to have combined the results of the state tests for 2007 with city tests that were administered in earlier years and have since been abandoned. It is unlikely that any independent psychometrician would approve of mixing the results of these disparate tests, which were not based on the same standards nor equated for their reliability and validity.

In the eighth grade, the gains for the city were also impressive, since this has been a historically low-scoring grade, where only twice before have more than 40% of students met state standards. When the Klein reforms were launched in 2003, only 34.4% of eighth graders met the state standards; in 2007, 45.6% did, a gain of 11.2 points over four years. That is a demonstration of the power of intensive test-prep activities, in which Tweed has invested heavily.

To be sure, testing experts tend to be suspicious of big changes in large-scale assessment programs, whether they go up or down. When a city or a state or a nation reports large one-year gains or losses, experts tend to raise their eyebrows and wonder about the test itself or the way it was scored. Was it easier or harder?

Jennifer Medina of The New York Times wisely pointed out in her first-day story that a federal study released just a week ago found that New York state’s math tests in 2005 in fourth grade and eighth grade were easier than in many other states. Indeed, New York’s fourth grade test was ranked easier than those in 28 of 32 other states, while the eighth grade was ranked below those of 12 other states in rigor. The State Education Department claimed that it changed the test in 2006 and made it more rigorous, which explained the drop in math scores last year; this year, with the astonishing increases in districts across the state, the State Education Department claims credit for improvements in teaching, curriculum, alignment, teacher training, collaboration with higher education, and everything else imaginable. So, if scores go down, the test got harder, but when scores go up, it has nothing to do with the test!

When the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported the 2005 results for mathematics, New York state found itself in an embarrassing situation. According to federal data, New York claimed that an astonishing 87% of fourth grade students met state proficiency standards, but on NAEP tests in 2005, only 36% of fourth grade students were rated proficient. In eighth grade, the state claimed that 56% of students were proficient, but on the more rigorous NAEP, only 31% were proficient.

Once again, New York state has reported startling results, after last year’s dismal scores in math. The public can be relieved that its state and local leaders are on the job, raising scores diligently and boldly, doing all the right things in the classroom, the school, and the district.

I suggest that we wait patiently to see whether the recent gains on the state tests are reflected on the national tests when the results are posted in November 2007.

In the meanwhile, I suggest that Governor Spitzer think seriously about creating an independent agency to administer tests and report on test results, one staffed by top-notch psychometricians who take neither credit nor blame for test results in the state and local districts.

Diane Ravitch

For analysis of 2007 ELA click here and here

Thursday, June 14, 2007

2007 ELA and Math Test Scores for NYC Public Schools

Quick links to 2007 test scores:
English Language Arts (ELA) click here and Math here. (Source NYC DoE)

(NY State Education Department has the ELA here and Math here)

Commentary on the results:
NY Times has an interview on the Math scores with former Board of Ed assessment chief Robert Tobias here.

Diane Ravitch on Math here and ELA here and here.

Juan Gonzalez of NY Daily News on ELA here

NY Sun Op-Ed from retired Board of Ed analyst Fred Smith here