7/28/2019 Letter to Commissioner ELA 2013

1/1

June 20, 2013

Dr. John B. King, Jr.

New York State Education Department

89 Washington Avenue

Albany, New York 12234

Dear Commissioner King:

I am an assistant principal at the Bronx Center for Science and Mathematics (BCSM), one of the highest performing non-screened

high schools in the Bronx and in New York City. I have also taught in this school and served as the chair of the Department of English

since 2008. In my years at BCSM, the passing rate on the Comprehensive English Regents Exam has hovered close to 90%. In the pasttwo years, however, I have noticed a downward trend and have been examining reasons for this so that I can help teachers better

prepare students.

While looking at teaching and the test, I have been particularly struck by two points. First, some of the questions have become more

rigorous and the focus has begun to shift, which makes sense given the new demands of the Common Core Standards and college

readiness. Second, while the rubrics over the last several years have remained identical, the conversion chart has shifted making it

more difficult for students to pass. In the last couple of years I have backtested our scores using the June 2011 chart for comparison;

while the exact amount differs from top to bottom, there is approximately a four-point difference in the conversion charts between

June 2011 and June 2013. For example, a student who scored a 23 in the multiple-choice and a 7 in the writing received a 79 in 2011

but a 75 in 2013; a student who scored a 21 on the multiple-choice and a 5 on the writing passed with a 65 in 2011 but failed with a

60 in 2013. A significant problem is that these changes in the conversion of scores happened with no corresponding change in the

rubrics. When the standard has not changed but the bar has without prior notice, how are we to demonstrate to teachers and

students alike the areas for improvement?

A specific impact of this is the case of one of our students who, when he first took the exam in June 2011, scored a 66. We worked

with this student to become college ready and reach the benchmark of 75. He sat again in January 2013 and received a 74. This

student was determined to make it, was prepped, and sat again this June. Despite having a higher raw score this time, a score that

would have converted to a 76 in January, this student once again fell short and actually received a lower converted score than he

previously receivedto reiterate, this is with a higherraw score. How do we explain to the student that the bar shifted without our

knowledge even though the standard, as explained in the rubrics, had not?

I understand the test will soon look different. However, for the sake of the students, the teachers, and the schools, all of whom are

rated based on these exams, the rubrics and the conversion charts must be aligned and consistent, and both should be made

available when teachers are preparing students, not at the time of the exam. Without this the confusion, frustration and skepticism

over these standardized tests will grow, and justifiably so.

Sincerely,

Stephen Seltzer

Assistant Principal