Charge to the Panel

The Panel is convened to evaluate the performance of the June 2003 Regents Math A. The Panel is advisory to the Commissioner and the Regents. The Regents will publish the Panel’s report without modification. The Panel will have access to all records, technical reports, and data related to the design and creation of the 2003 Math A exam and other Math A exams, and all members of the State Education Department and consultants who took any part in that work. They will have access to the results of the exams (including, for example, results for different grades, and students who sat for the exam multiple times).

We ask the Panel to provide its best answers and advice in response to these questions:

  1. Did the June 2003 Regents Math A exam measure achievement of the New York State mathematics standard three as defined through the core curriculum -- consistent with generally accepted standards for assessments? (Refer to the so-called "Joint Standards.")

  2. Were there anomalies in the test preparation process that could account for real or perceived changes in the level of difficulty in the June 2003 Regents Math A exam in comparison with prior Math A exams? This includes but is not limited to item writing, pre-testing and field testing (including adequacy of the samples), production scheduling, scaling, equating, final test assembly and review of the completed exam.

  3. Were groups of students taking the June 2003 Math A exam statistically similar to or different from those taking previous Regents Math A exams?

  4. Is the 2003 Regents Math A exam of the same level of difficulty as prior Regents Math A exams? (That is, in addition to the equating included in question 2, consider the content, cognitive demand, and perceived difficulty of the exam.)

  5. Is the June 2003 Regents Math A exam of a level of difficulty appropriate for high school graduation? In answering this question, consider available national and international benchmarks.

  6. Are the word problems at a reading level appropriate to high school? Is the sequence or grouping of more challenging questions a probable cause of lower performance?

  7. Are there any other factors that could explain the difficulty many students had in meeting the standards with the June 2003 Regents Math A exam? For example, are the guidelines about the exam, which were sent to the schools clear?

  8. If the June 2003 Regents Math A exam was not of the same level of difficulty as previous Math A exams, can the results be re-scaled appropriately and used to measure student achievement, and if so, how?

  9. What actions does the Panel recommend to improve the Regents Mathematics A testing program?

Back to Math A Panel Report

Back to Press Statement

Home

 7/14/03