Most of the criticism came from educators.  See the Buffalo News, Middletown Times-Herald Record, and Newsday (paid subscription required), for example.

But the Syracuse Post-Standard also published a harsh editorial.

At the same time, most newspaper editorials have praised the Department’s action in acknowledging testing flaws and moving to set higher standards.  Here is what the New York Times had to say.

The Council tried to draw attention to additional points:  Actual student scores did not decline — there was not a fall-off in school performance, school leaders support higher standards, and the state has much more work to do to help schools and students succeed in meeting higher standards.

The New York City United Federation of Teachers “EDwise” blog provided a thoughtful analysis, noting,

“It’s true, in a sense, that all that happened Wednesday was the state reported test scores using a higher cut-score… But a lot more happened than that.  As State Education Commissioner David Steiner explained at the state’s press conference, the state tests have not simply become too easy. They have become bad tests.

The union blog goes on, “They have been assessing only a very narrow band of state standards and virtually ignoring the rest of the state curriculum. They have repeated questions from year to year, making it easy to game the tests. And they do not reflect what students need to succeed in college and careers.”

The post then notes widening achievement gaps, cites the limits of test-prep curricula and explains how SED plans to improve the tests.

Some coverage picked up on the fact that results in some charter schools declined by more than those in district schools.

The Council tried to draw attention to the positive – not about SED’s implementation – but about schools and school leaders.

We noted that have not been satisfied with the tests, the standards, or our pace of progress for some time (see our Education is a Civil Right reform agenda or our Skills for Life column on updating state learning standards).

Quite a few papers around the state cited our statement.

We stressed that actual scores earned by students remained about the same as last year, indicating that the decline in the percentage of students meeting standards was due to setting a higher standard, not a fall-off in school performance (see the lower Hudson Valley’s Journal News for example).

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made the same point.

At the same time, we warned that schools could be set up to fail – being asked to do more for students, while the state is reducing revenues for schools  (See Newsday and Gannett, for example).

We also emphasized that the state needs to do more than just adjust cut scores on elementary and middle grade assessments.  The Albany Times Union and some other papers quoted from our statement,

“The state needs to give schools a clear sense of the ultimate goal we should aim for — what should students know and be able to do when they graduate from high school. The 3 through 8 tests are just one part of a system that needs to work together to help schools lead students to that goal.”

Here is our complete statement.

I would have been stunned had New York not made it this far this time.

If there was a surprise in the selections, it is that the U.S. Education Department advanced more than half the states submitting applications to the finalist stage.  Eighteen states and the District of Columbia were chosen.

The federal Department picked all the states which made it to the finals last time but did not win funding (including New York) and five new states.

Since coming up short in phase 1, New York has acted to advance its standing in addressing several of the RTTT priorities:

• The state has assembled about $40 million and taking other steps to improve student data systems — this was the single biggest weakness in it first round application;
• It raised the cap on the number of charter schools authorized to operate in the state; and
• It passed a law requiring the use of student performance data in teacher evaluation.

Here again is the chart I prepared comparing New York’s first round ratings with those of higher ranking states on each dimension of RTTT criteria.

Of course, other states have also acted to improve their chances.  That is one of the interesting ramifications of picking only two winners (Delaware and Tennessee) in phase one — it left a lot of money on the table ($3.4 billion) for states to compete for, while also impelling them to scratch for ways to improve upon the applications they submitted in phase 1.

The next step in the competition will come during the week of August 9, when teams from all the finalist states travel to Washington to meet with federal reviewers, presenting their proposals and responding to questions.

Yesterday, Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch announced the team which will represent New York State that week:  herself, Commissioner David Steiner, Senior Deputy Commissioner John King, New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, and New York City United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew.

The composition might get noticed for its heavy New York City representation.  (As I just did).  If it works, however, the whole state gains.

The state was second-guessed after phase 1 for emphasizing ground-level expertise over big names.  The phase 1 team included Steiner, King, SED Assistant Commissioners Ira Schwartz and Laura Smith, and New Visions for Public Schools President Robert Hughes.  In contrast, the teams from winning Delaware and Tennessee both included their governors.

Winning states are expected to be announced in late August or early September.  U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said he expects that 10 to 15 states will be chosen for funding.

Education Week noted, “…the number of winners—whether it’s closer to 10 or 15—will depend on which states win. After all, if New York, Florida, and California win and are awarded the maximum amount allowed by the Education Department’s rules, they’ll eat up $2.1 billion, or more than half of the remaining funds. Altogether, the states are asking for $6.2 billion, far more than the $3.4 billion that’s available.”

Information on New York’s application is available here.

Stay tuned…

As expected, the percentages of students meeting standards dropped sharply.

At the same time, the average scale scores earned by students were roughly the same as last year, indicating that the decline in “passing” rates was attributable chiefly to raising the standard, rather than a decline in student or school performance.

The Department’s news release and power point presentation on the results are available here, as is a link to the news conference conducted by Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, Commissioner David Steiner, and Senior Deputy Commissioner John King.

The Council’s statement follows.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:    July 28, 2010

CONTACT:  Robert Lowry Ÿ 518/449-1063

Statewide Superintendents Council reacts to release of grades 3 through 8 assessment results

Reacting to the release of grades 3 through 8 state assessment results by the State Education Department, New York State Council of School Superintendents Executive Director Robert Reidy said,

“The results show a sharp drop in the percentage of students judged to be meeting standards.  But at the same time the average scores earned by students remained about the same.  This indicates that the drop in passing rates came from setting a higher standard, not from any fall-off in school performance.”

Reidy’s statement came after the Education Department released results from the states grade 3 through 8 assessments in mathematics and English language arts following an adjustment to the “cut scores” for those tests.  Cut scores are used to distinguish levels of student performance on standardized tests, including whether a student is passing or meeting standards.

Reidy noted also that average scores in math remained about the same as in 2009, even though the Department expanded those tests to cover more material.

“We respect that the Department’s leadership conducted a review of its tests, concluded they were flawed, and moved to begin improving them,” Reidy said.  “We weren’t satisfied with the tests, the standards, or our progress before,” he added.  “The Department’s findings just confirm that we all have more work to do.”

“Commissioner Steiner and the Regents are setting higher expectations for schools and students.  Superintendents endorse that goal,” Reidy said.  “But much more needs to be done to achieve the goal than merely changing the passing scores on elementary and middle school tests.”

“Most importantly,” Reidy said, “the state needs to give schools a clear sense of the ultimate goal we should aim for – what should students know and be able to do when they graduate from high school.  The 3 through 8 tests are just one part of a system that needs to work together to help schools lead students to that goal.”

Reidy noted comments by SED’s Senior Deputy Commissioner John King last week when the State Board of Regents endorsed adjusting the cut scores.

Speaking of past gains on state tests, Dr. King said, “The data shows that schools responded to the assignment they were given – they worked hard to help students achieve standards as measured by the state tests that were being given at that time. And more students did, in fact, pass those tests. The problem is that those exams didn’t sufficiently test students’ abilities – the bar was set too low.”

Reidy said, “Experience gives us confidence.  As the state improves its tests and clarifies its expectations for students and schools, we are certain that schools will again achieve increasing success in helping more and more students meet the hopes we hold for them.”

Reidy also welcomed the Education Department‘s efforts to gain some relief from federal school accountability requirements and give schools flexibility in applying state test results to determine which students must receive extra help.  But he added that many superintendents will feel an obligation to provide that help to any student whom state tests show is not meeting standards.

Reidy concluded, “We are concerned that schools could be set up to fail.  We are being asked to do more for students – a decision that we endorse.  But at the same time, state officials are threatening to cut school revenues, through state aid reductions and property tax caps, while not giving us any immediate real help in reducing costs.  We expect the Commissioner and the Regents to be forceful advocates for the resources schools will need to help students succeed.”

###

More on this to come…

The group which brought the suit (the Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Association) can appeal the decision.  For reasons which have always eluded me, “Supreme” Court is the lowest of the three tiers in the state court system.

The decision is available here.

The Teachers Retirement System says this about the challenge:

“As of this writing it is not known whether this decision will be appealed. The payment of the unreduced retirement benefit to eligible members who retired pursuant to Chapter 45 will be subject to the final outcome of any appellate process. Please watch the NYSTRS Web site for news of any further developments. Members considering retirement under Chapter 45 may wish to consult with their collective bargaining representative and/or attorney.”

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan will announce the finalists in a speech at 12:30 1 pm today at the National Press Club in Washington.

You can watch the speech live here and read the announcement here when it is posted — expected to be around 1 pm.

I’ll be surprised if something doesn’t leak out before noon, however.

I expect that New York will be among the finalists.  So does an Education Week blogger.

A cover note from from Joseph Frey, SED’s deputy commissioner for higher education, explains that the standards will,

form the foundation of a cohesive system to prepare, select, develop, and retain teachers who are effective in improving learning for all students. These standards will be the basis for teacher preparation programs, assessments for certification, annual professional performance reviews, and professional/career development plans for New York teachers.

The Department will be seeking comments through August 16.  Readers may view the cover note and draft standards and complete a response form here.

We encourage our readers to offer reactions, either via the Department’s response form or by sending them to us.

This initiative commenced before legislation was enacted to alter teacher and principal evaluation and support the state’s application for federal Race to the Top funding.  Nonetheless, these standards are referenced in the new law and would be applied under it.

Coming out of the Capitol to work more intensively with educators – teachers and superintendents – I was surprised by how positive they were toward the state’s efforts to raise standards and help all students to meet them.

To be sure, both groups routinely quarreled with Commissioner Mills and the Regents over some of the specifics in translating aspiration into policy.

But my sense was that they predominantly embraced the idea that “all means all,” and drew energy from the mission of  at last giving all students access to a meaningful curriculum and striving to help all meet its expectations.

Now there is justifiable concern over how a change in cut scores will affect grades 3 through 8 test results for students and schools and how those scores will be reported and received, especially in this time of extreme financial challenges.

But I draw some hope for the long haul based on our past experience.

I respect the efforts of state officials – Commissioner David Steiner, Senior Deputy Commissioner John King, and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch – to stress that there were weaknesses in the tests that the state developed, that schools were responding rationally to the tests as they were constructed, and were in fact helping more and more students achieve success on those tests.

Now the Education Department has assembled data which makes a pretty compelling case that the tests were flawed.  The Department released more data today.

In one sense, I can’t dispute the Commissioner’s analogy that if your thermometer is broken you don’t keep using the thermometer.

It’s not a perfect analogy, however.  Unless you’re trying to influence whether you go to school or work or stay at home, you don’t try to “improve” your temperature reading.  But schools do try, honestly and earnestly, to improve test outcomes for their students.

Building on that analogy, it would have been far preferable if the Department officials could have said to schools at the beginning of the school year, “We are going to be making some changes to the grades 3 through 8 tests, including raising cut scores; here is what you will now have to do in order to improve your students’ chances to demonstrate proficiency.”

But like all of us, they juggle competing demands and time lines.  SED spent the past year investigating and confirming suspicions about the tests. Having now reached a firm conclusion, it would be hard to justify keeping the bad thermometer.

A theme that we have stressed is that, for better or worse, as long as there are tests, there will be teaching to the test.  So we need to be sure we have tests that are worth teaching to.

That gets at what I draw hope from in this experience.

As the SED leadership has stressed, schools were responding rationally to the assignment they were given – helping students meet state standards as measured by the tests the state employed, and more students were passing those tests.

Now the state is acting to improve its tests and hopes to take other steps, including developing curricula that would diminish the now excessive role of state tests in defining expectations for schools and students.

I expect that as the state makes those changes, schools will again respond, and will once again achieve increasing success in helping students demonstrate proficiency on the state’s improved assessments.

Today’s New York Times reports on movement by states to adopt the standards, one of the elements in Washington’s $4.5 billion “Race to the Top” competition.  States which agree to the standards gain points.

The Times reports that 27 states have adopted the standards since they were finalized by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers two months ago.

New York is among those states.  The Board of Regents approved the standards this past Monday.

Also today, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (no connection to Fordham University) issued a report grading state and national standards.

Fordham gives high marks to the national, common core standards – a B+ for English, an A- for mathematics.

The report gives middling grades to New York’s standards.  Our English language arts standards earn a C; 14 states received higher grades.  Our math standards received a B, below the grades earned by 12 other states.

Below are the report’s overview comments on New York’s standards.

The analysis did not look at the work of the state’s committee reviewing ELA standards, chaired by Regent Saul Cohen and coordinated by former Skaneateles superintendent Walter Sullivan, long-time chair of the Council’s Curriculum and Instruction Committee.

Adoption of the national standards throws into question the status of that effort.  Also, critics in New York and elsewhere argue that national standards intrude on a state responsibility and that they could level down standards.

It needs to be noted, however, that states may supplement the national standards by up to 15 percent with state-developed standards.  Flexibility is probably even greater than the percentage figure suggests since standards are not easily quantified.

Excerpt from the Fordham Foundation’s The State of State Standards — and the Common Core — in 2010 – overview comments on New York State:

English Language Arts and Literacy
Grade:  C – The presentation of the New York State Learning Standards for ELA—and the accompanying English Language Arts Core Curriculum—is somewhat confusing; and although much of the essential K-12 ELA content is included, it is often buried among non-essential standards more focused on instruc­tional strategies than on student outcomes. In addition, many vaguely worded standards leave too much room for weak or inconsistent implemen­tation across schools and districts.

Mathematics
Grade:  B – New York’s standards are generally strong. They cover much of the essential content with both depth and rigor. The main weakness in the standards is with the development of arithmetic. Though it is reasonably prioritized, its coverage is not quite rigorous enough. High school content is often strong, including STEM-ready material.

A news release from the State Education Department explains that the decision is “…based on research that clearly suggests the need to more accurately indicate ‘proficiency’ on those exams.”

School, district, and statewide results from these tests will be released during the week of July 26.

A webcast of Commissioner Steiner’s presentation to the Regents is available here.  The slides he used are available here.

I see two key statistical points in the Department’s rationale for the changes.

First, sharp gains in students demonstrating proficiency on state assessments have not been matched by corresponding gains by New York students on the National Assessment of educational Progress (slide 15).

The second point involves correlations between success on 3 through assessments, on Regents Exams, and in college.

• Students who scored below an 80 on the Regents Math A Exam (for example) had a slim chance of taking a college-level math class in their first semester in college (slide 7); and
• Students who scored at the cut-point (demonstrating proficiency) on the 8th grade state math assessment have only a one in three chance of scoring an 80 or better on the Math Regents (slide 19).

In the SED news release, Senior Deputy Commissioner John King said,

The data shows that schools responded to the assignment they were given – they worked hard to help students achieve standards as measured by the state tests that were being given at that time. And more students did, in fact, pass those tests. The problem is that those exams didn’t sufficiently test students’ abilities – the bar was set too low.

In his presentation, the Commissioner said, “For sure, our teachers, and our principals, and our superintendents put their shoulder to the wheel and results on the knowledge we tested got better…  Let no one say that our teachers or our principals in any way failed.”

The Commissioner stressed problems with how the math tests were designed, comparing them to beams of light that illuminated narrow areas of curriculum and kept illuminating (testing) the same areas.  This led teachers, families and students to focus on mastering those areas.

Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch  put the initiative in a larger context,

‘Proficiency’ on our exams has to mean something real; no good purpose is served when we say that a child is proficient when that child is not. So we’re improving our assessments by raising cut scores, making the exams less predictable, testing more areas, and making the tests longer. But more rigorous exams are only one piece of the Regents broader reform vision – a vision that includes a more challenging curriculum, better training for teachers and principals, and a world-class data system.

To avoid inflicting a significant new cost on districts after they have adopted annual budgets, the Regents also approved a temporary change in how state test results are used in determining which students need Academic Intervention Services (i.e., remedial help).

Over the weekend, the Syracuse Post-Standard ran an interview with SED Senior Deputy Commissioner John King and the Middletown Times Herald Record published a column by Sullivan BOCES superintendent Larry Thomas.

Writing on behalf of the Sullivan County school superintendents, Mr. Thomas “we applaud the new directions being set by New York state’s new educational leadership” but warned that there will be “bumps in the road” to higher standards, including when SED releases results from tests applying the new cut scores later this month.

The Regents’ concern with the state testing program predates Dr. Steiner’s arrival as Commissioner last October.  The Department’s news release noted,

In May 2009, the Regents directed that the state ELA and math tests be moved from January (ELA) and March (math) to late April and early May beginning in 2010 so that the exams could cover more material. The Regents also requested a thorough review of the Testing Program to ensure higher achievement standards and valid and reliable test scores that would reflect the appropriate level of rigor to ensure college and career readiness.